[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 45 (Monday, April 8, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2440-S2449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 32, S. 649.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 32, S. 649, a bill to
ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from
buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal
background check system and require a background check for
every firearm sale, and for other purposes.
Reservation of Leader Time
Mr. REID. Would the Chair announce the business of the day.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
Mr. REID. Are we now in a period of morning business?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are on the motion to proceed to
S. 649.
Mr. REID. Thank you very much. I note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
[[Page S2441]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
CMS Financial Information
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, it is said that information is the
most valuable commodity. In politics you probably know that information
is power. The bigger government gets, the more valuable government
information becomes to financial markets. This is especially true of
information from agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services. It is that agency that my remarks are about.
CMS controls $748 billion in government spending per year. That is
billions with a B. Today, there are questions surrounding CMS's ability
to safeguard nonpublic information. This is not about secrecy in
government, it is about government secrets having an impact on the
stock market.
This is not the first time I have raised similar questions with the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In 2011 I received
information from a whistleblower that CMS employees were spending large
amounts of time in meetings with Wall Street executives. I wrote to CMS
with these concerns. The response I received was very troubling. CMS
could not tell us how many meetings were taking place with these Wall
Street executives. CMS could not tell us who from Wall Street was in
these meetings. CMS could not tell us how much time they spent with
these executives.
In fact, the only thing CMS could tell us was that it did not track
any of this information. Private businesses have stiff controls over
access to nonpublic information, the same sort of stiff controls the
Federal Government ought to employ for things that would impact the
market and give somebody an extraordinary opportunity the average
citizen does not have.
The only specific step that CMS took was issuing a two-page memo to
its employees. This goes back to that period of time I was asking the
questions in 2011. The memo limited the release of market-moving
information before the close of the stock markets. Now, that is the
right thing to do.
That memo presumably was not followed by somebody. Who, we do not
know because on April 1, that requirement appears to have been
violated. According to the Wall Street Journal, at 3:42 p.m., Height
Securities, a political intelligence broker, issued an advisory note to
its employees. This note said--it is right here in the chart: ``We now
believe that a deal has been hatched to protect Medicare Advantage
rates'' from the minus 2.3 rate update issued in the advanced notice
mid-February.
This note goes on to suggest that clients purchase related stocks
such as Humana. Between 3:42 p.m. and the market close, and that was
just 18 minutes later, volumes for affected companies spiked--look
here--spiked in the last 18 minutes to more than $\1/2\ billion.
In fact, the combined volume of shares traded for those companies for
those 18 minutes was higher than the rest of the entire trading day.
Not only did large numbers of shares change hands, but also buyers who
got the information first likely made a heck of a lot of money. For
example, Humana stock rose 8.6 percent in a matter of minutes.
Of course, this looks like political intelligence at work--political
intelligence meaning the industry of political intelligence at work. A
political intelligence broker gets ahold of nonpublic government
information before it is widely released, and a select few paying
clients end up reaping the rewards.
We just had a study out by the Government Accountability Office
studying the political intelligence community. The Government
Accountability Office reports that the world of political intelligence
is murky. In other words, people are using government. They are
profiting from it. But nobody knows who they are.
The public and Congress have little insight into how government
information is collected. Collecting is one thing, but it is sold.
People who collect it make money, and in the instances you see here,
when that gets out people in the know make money.
So who pays for that information? We all know since 1946 lobbyists
have had to register, and in more recent legislation have had to
disclose their clients, what they lobby on, and how much they get paid.
Even campaign donors have to report what they give to various
campaigns.
Political intelligence brokers are exempt from any transparency. Yet
you see they are around gathering information that should not be out to
the public until after the market closes. They are benefiting from it
and a lot of other people benefit from it.
Now, because there is no transparency about the political
intelligence community, we have to find out what caused this to happen.
Did the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services employees leak this
information? Was there a leak from another government source? Either
way we need answers to these questions.
Tomorrow is Acting Administrator Tavenner's confirmation hearing
before the Senate Finance Committee. This acting director is a very
qualified person. I think she will be able to answer our questions--at
least I hope so. So I want her to know, and the Senate to know, that I
plan on asking Ms. Tavenner several questions: How did this information
get from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to a political
intelligence broker? What steps will CMS take to ensure this does not
happen again? And was the memo they sent violated?
I hope she recognizes the importance of these questions. I hope she
comes prepared to take responsibility. I hope she comes prepared to
explain how she plans to hold someone accountable because in this town,
if heads do not roll, nothing changes. She has been a good Acting
Administrator of this agency. She wants the Senate to confirm her to
the job. This is her opportunity to show us that she is worthy of that
confirmation.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection,
it is so ordered.
Mary Jo White Nomination
Mr. FRANKEN. I rise today to discuss the confirmation of Mary Jo
White as Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Ms. White has had an impressive career--from prosecuting terrorists
and white-collar criminals as a U.S. attorney for the Southern District
of New York to heading a large litigation department in private
practice. There is little doubt that Ms. White has the Wall Street
expertise necessary to navigate the complex issues before the SEC.
I come to the floor today to discuss a critical problem I have asked
Ms. White to prioritize as Chair of the SEC. Currently, when a bank
issues a structured finance product, it needs to get the product rated
by the credit rating agencies, and the bank pays them for the ratings.
The banks have an interest in getting high ratings, and the credit
rating agencies have an interest in getting repeat customers. Of
course, this creates a fundamental conflict of interest. This conflict
played a key role in the financial meltdown. It is a problem we sought
to address in the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation we passed in
2010. Yet it is a problem that remains. It is awaiting action by the
SEC--more than 5 years after the financial crisis hit and nearly 3
years since Dodd-Frank was signed into law.
Resolving the problem of the conflict of interest in the rating
industry will be a vital test of the SEC under Ms. White's
chairmanship. In a meeting we had together last month in my office, Ms.
White expressed her appreciation of the importance of this issue and
her commitment to scrutinize conflicts of interest inherent in the
credit rating industry. I look forward to working with her to find a
meaningful solution to alleviate the ongoing threat to our financial
system posed by these conflicts of interest. The next concrete step in
that process is a roundtable the SEC will hold on this issue in May.
That roundtable must be a balanced assessment of the issue, and it must
lead to meaningful action by the SEC.
This is not, to be sure, the only issue in financial reform facing
the SEC. I wish to talk a little bit about why I
[[Page S2442]]
care so passionately about reforming the credit rating process and why
this is so important.
In the years leading up to the 2008 financial collapse, the credit
rating agencies were enjoying massive profits and booming business. Of
course, there is nothing wrong with massive profits and booming
business in and of themselves, but there was one fundamental problem:
Booming business was coming at the expense of accurate credit ratings,
which is supposed to be the entire reason for the existence of the
credit rating agencies.
The fact that the credit rating agencies were not providing accurate
ratings should come as no surprise given the industry's compensation
model. Credit rating agencies were and still are paid to issue ratings
directly by the big Wall Street banks issuing the paper and requesting
the ratings. If a rating agency--let's say Moody's--doesn't provide the
triple-A rating the bank wants, the bank can just take its business
over to Fitch or S&P's. That is called ratings shopping, and it
continues to this day. The opportunity for ratings shopping creates an
incentive for the credit raters to give out those triple-A ratings even
when they are not warranted, and that is exactly what happened with the
subprime, mortgage-backed securities that played such a crucial role in
the financial crisis, and it happened over and over again. It became
ingrained in the culture of the industry.
The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator
Levin, took a close look at the big three credit rating agencies,
examined millions of pages of documents, and released an extensive
report detailing the internal communications at Moody's, S&P, and
Fitch. Among the many troubling e-mails, there was one from an S&P
official that sums up the prevailing attitude quite nicely: ``Let's
hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards
falters.''
With all the risky bets in the financial sector--and bets on those
bets--our financial sector had indeed become a house of cards. But
without the conduct of the credit raters, the house of cards would have
been one card tall because it gave triple-A ratings to these bets on
bets on bets--these derivatives.
Two years after that e-mail was written, that house of cards didn't
just falter, it collapsed. Because that house of cards had grown so
tall--thanks to the credit rating agencies--when it collapsed, it
brought the entire American economy down with it. The financial
meltdown cost Americans $3.4 trillion--let me say that again--$3.4
trillion in retirement savings. It triggered the worst crisis since the
Great Depression with its massive business failure and mass
foreclosures and job losses and the explosion of our national debt.
The crisis profoundly affected the everyday lives of millions of
people across the country in so many negative ways, including in
Minnesota. People lost their homes, their jobs, their health insurance.
I know the Presiding Officer saw it in New Mexico. I saw it in
Minnesota. Every Senator here saw it in their State.
In May 2010 I called on Minnesotans to participate in a field hearing
to learn about their experiences during the financial collapse. I would
like to share some highlights from the testimony presented by Dave Berg
of Eden Prairie, MN.
My situation mirrors the situation of thousands of
Minnesotans in my age group--and illustrates why it is so
important to reform the way Wall Street operates. I am 57
years old and looking for a job. After having spent most of
my career in the IT field, I have been out of work for 14
months . . . Throughout my working career, I saved for
retirement. I participated in pension and 401(k) plans that
my former employers matched. I thought I would have a secure
retirement because I was doing the right thing . . . Much of
my overall retirement security is now gone . . . At the age
of 57, I need to again start building up a nest egg so I can
hopefully retire in my seventies. This was not my plan.
As a job seeker in my 50s, I am not alone. Twice weekly, I
meet with groups of job seekers, many of whom are in the same
situation as I am. While we keep our outlook positive, most
of us are faced with the prospect of starting over and we are
resigned to the fact that we could be working in our
seventies.
The downturn of the economy, caused in part by the abuses
on Wall Street, led to the loss of my retirement security.
Reforming the way Wall Street operates is important to me
personally, because I have a lot of saving yet to do--and I
simply cannot afford another Wall Street meltdown. I need to
have confidence in the markets--and I need to know that there
is accountability to those who caused this financial crisis.
As Dave points out, he is not alone. Everyone in this body has heard
stories like this. It is hard to overestimate the extent to which the
credit rating agencies contributed to the financial crisis in which
thousands of Minnesotans lost their homes, thousands lost their jobs,
and far too many Minnesotans had their hopes for the future dashed.
They are not seeking retribution from Wall Street, they just need to
know it will not happen again. They know that there is a problem and
that the problem needs to be fixed. We do not need further proof of
that, but we get it in the recent complaint filed by the Department of
Justice against S&P in which DOJ alleges--as it said when it filed the
complaint--that the credit rating agency ``falsely represented that its
ratings were objective, independent, and uninfluenced by S&P's
relationships with investment banks when, in actuality, S&P's desire
for increased revenue and market share led it to favor the interests of
these banks over investors.''
The complaint highlights the patently problematic way the credit
rating agencies habitually did their business. One e-mail obtained in
the investigation from a high-level S&P official reads:
We are meeting with your group this week to discuss
adjusting criteria for rating CDO's of real estate assets . .
. because of the ongoing threat of losing deals.
CDOs--collaterized debt obligations--are one of those derivatives or
bets that added stories to the house of cards. This official had
apparently become so comfortable with the culture of conflicts of
interest that he appeared to have no reservations about putting it in
writing.
I am glad the Department of Justice is pursuing a case against the
S&P, but DOJ's action is not enough. It is backward-looking and
addresses past harms, but my concern is that the conduct continues to
this day. The credit raters are still influenced by the relationships
with the banks because that is who pays them. It is a clear conflict of
interest and we need to prioritize actions that will prevent another
meltdown in the future.
That is exactly what Congress--and I--did as part of the financial
reform legislation in 2010. As part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
reform act, I proposed a solution with my friend and colleague Senator
Roger Wicker of Mississippi. If our provision is implemented in full,
it would root out the conflicts of interest from the ``issuer pays''
model. The amendment Senator Wicker and I offered to the financial
reform bill directed the Securities and Exchange Commission to create
an independent self-regulatory organization that would select which
agency--one with the adequate capacity and expertise--would provide the
initial credit rating of each product. The assignments would be based
not only on capacity and expertise but also, after time, on their track
record. Our approach would incentivize and reward excellence. The
current pay-for-play model--with its inherent conflict of interest--
would be replaced by a pay-for-performance model. This improved market
would finally allow smaller rating agencies to break the Big Three's
oligopoly.
The oligopoly is clear. The SEC estimates that as of December 31,
2011, approximately 91 percent of the credit ratings for structured
finance products were issued by the three largest NRSROs--Fitch,
Moody's, and S&P--each of which was implicated in the PSI
investigation. The other five agencies doing structured finance make up
the remaining 9 percent.
The current oligopoly doesn't incentivize accuracy. However, if we
move to a system based on merit, the smaller credit rating agencies
would be better able to participate and could serve as a check against
inflated ratings, helping to prevent another meltdown.
In our proposed model, the independent board would be comprised
mainly of investor types--managers of endowments and pension funds--who
have the greatest stake in the reliability of credit ratings, as well
as representatives from the credit rating agencies and banking
industries, and academics who have studied this issue.
[[Page S2443]]
Our amendment passed the Senate with a large majority, including 11
Republican votes, because this is not a progressive idea and it is not
a conservative idea--it is a commonsense idea.
The final version of Dodd-Frank modified the amendment and, to be
frank, put more decisionmaking authority in the hands of the SEC in how
to respond to the problem of conflicts of interest in the credit rating
industry. The final version directed the SEC to study the proposal
Senator Wicker and I made, along with other alternatives, and then
decide how to act.
The SEC released its study in December. The study acknowledged the
continued conflicts of interest in the credit rating industry and
reviewed our proposal and many of the alternatives, laying out the pros
and cons of each without reaching a definitive conclusion on which
route to pursue.
The next step is a roundtable the SEC is holding on May 14. I will be
participating in the event, and I hope that under Ms. White's
leadership the SEC will make the roundtable a meaningful and balanced
discussion of the different possibilities for reform. I have said all
along that I believe the proposal of Senator Wicker and myself is a
good one--and the right one--the more I have thought about it and
looked at it over these few years. But if someone makes a compelling
case for an alternative--an alternative that truly alleviates this
danger of this inherent conflict of interest--I will gladly lend it my
support. Following the roundtable the SEC must take prompt and decisive
action to implement a meaningful plan for reform.
But don't get me wrong. The need for reform is obvious and necessary,
and I will pursue this issue until the American economy is no longer
subject to these unnecessary risks. Too many Minnesotans--too many
Americans--were devastated by a financial crisis to which the credit
rating agencies contributed mightily. The conflicts of interest in the
credit rating agencies must be addressed so they don't contribute to
yet another crisis.
Ultimately, it is up to the SEC to act, and the action they take on
this issue will be an important measure of Ms. White's tenure as chair
of the Commission. Ms. White has assured me she will give this critical
issue the attention it deserves. I congratulate Ms. White on her
confirmation and I do intend to hold her to that commitment. I look
forward to working with her and the rest of the Commission on this very
important issue.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Confronting The Great Challenges
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to deliver my maiden speech as a
U.S. Senator from Nebraska.
I am humbled by the trust placed in me by Nebraskans and inspired by
their confidence to confront the great challenges before us.
Our Nation's story began when bands of patriots fought a revolution
to secure independence from an out-of-touch King residing an ocean
away. The Framers believed a representative government closer to the
people would be more responsive and better able to provide opportunity
for individuals.
From the start, leaders of good will and strong views disagreed over
economic theories, the size of government, and foreign policy.
Importantly, though, these divergent beliefs have been a source of
national strength--not weakness--and through vigorous debate about the
proper size and role of government, we have built a powerful nation.
But as recent partisan disagreements prove, democracy is messy, and
the best way forward is not always clear. While I do not aim to resolve
this contest of ideas with a single speech, I do wish to outline a
course I intend to chart during my time in the Senate.
To understand my views, one must first understand Nebraska.
Nebraska's motto is ``The Good Life''--a fitting maxim for a State with
the second lowest unemployment rate in the country.
Make no mistake, Nebraska's economic success and sound fiscal footing
is no accident. Similar to 45 other States, Nebraska is legally
required to balance its budget. But unique to Nebraska is a
constitutional prohibition against incurring State debt greater than
$100,000. That is a radical concept for lawmakers here in Washington.
We can imagine Nebraskans' dismay when they take stock of our
Nation's $16 trillion debt and annual trillion-dollar deficits.
Needless to say, Nebraskans know better.
Nebraska is known for its pioneer history and sturdy spirit, its
prime grazing grasses and plentiful crop production, its abundant
natural resources, growing metropolitan areas, and vibrant small towns.
But the State's greatest treasure is its people.
Nebraskans are hard working. We get up early to work farms and
ranches and return home late after attending local school board
meetings. I make this claim as a family rancher and a former school
board member myself.
Nebraskans run thriving small businesses on Rockwellian Main Streets
and they sweat on factory floors. We lead multinational corporations
and we are builders. We build homes, we build roads and infrastructure.
Nebraskans value community. We join the PTA, we coach Little League
teams after long workdays, and we volunteer for our churches and our
synagogues. We work hard, but we are people with perspective.
Nebraskans are tough. We are tested by droughts, by fires and floods,
and a changing global economy. We have even endured nine-win football
seasons. We are strong-willed people--you have to be to survive a
winter on the Great Plains--and we adapt, we innovate, and we grow.
Nebraska is home to the only unicameral legislature in the Nation. As
a former two-term State senator, I was privileged to serve in the
Unicameral for 8 years. Notably, State senators in Nebraska are
nonpartisan. No matter party or ideological affiliation, any senator
can serve in leadership. The only requirements are knowledge and
ability.
Serving in the Nebraska legislature taught me the importance of
building relationships and seizing opportunities so we can work across
party lines. That is a critical skill in order to avoid gridlock.
Similar to many Nebraskans, I am deeply concerned about the future of
our Nation. That is why I entered public service.
No single issue is more important to our future than the Federal
Government's addiction to spending. There are two main problems with
government spending: First, runaway spending has failed to generate
economic growth. Since 2009, the Federal Government has spent roughly
$15 trillion. This spending spree includes $830 million in stimulus
spending that was sold as ``help for the private sector.''
Instead, this so-called investment focused on growing the government.
The result of this increased government spending has been a largely
jobless economic recovery, a record number of Americans stuck in
poverty and spiraling national debt. Rather than empowering individuals
to improve their lives, these bad economic policies have held Americans
back.
To change course toward renewed prosperity, I support a limited
government focused on fulfilling its core duties and responsibilities,
a limited Federal Government performing its first constitutional
charge: providing for the common defense.
To protect the Nation we must maintain a highly trained, well-
equipped fighting force. Equally important, a limited government keeps
its promises to veterans who have risked life and limb in defense of
freedom. A limited Federal Government has a responsibility to fund
critical needs such as a 21st-century infrastructure. To the surprise
of many in Washington, this can be done without raising taxes. Existing
sources of revenue are sufficient for government to meet its
fundamental responsibilities.
As a member of the Nebraska Legislature, I introduced legislation
directing a portion of Nebraska's existing sales tax to fund new road
construction. I worked with my colleagues, both Republicans and
Democrats, to utilize only existing revenue. With the right mix of hard
work and good will the legislature passed this bill. The State will now
be able to fulfill that
[[Page S2444]]
fundamental core duty, that fundamental responsibility of government,
and improve Nebraska's communities without raising taxes. We can make
similar progress in Washington. Again, it is a matter of setting
priorities.
The second problem with government spending is that it robs hard-
working taxpayers of their personal income just to grow bigger
government. Big government crowds out the private sector and it stifles
innovation. This means more Solyndra-style investment rather than
policies that provide for the kind of risk takers who launch a world-
changing business from their garage.
Big government requires big funding. Rather than forcing Americans to
forfeit more of their hard-earned tax dollars to Uncle Sam, I support
policies that lower taxes, that bolster the private sector. Only then
will the United States finally emerge from this long economic
recession.
Nebraskans understand that the bigger the government, the smaller the
individual. The smaller the individual, the less attention is paid to
freedom and personal responsibility. Limited government, on the other
hand, remains grounded closer to home. Government that is closer to
home is better suited for meeting individual needs, creating more
opportunity, more efficiency, and more growth.
The expansion of government and the subsequent erosion of freedom are
not always obvious at first. Freedom can be chipped away at slowly but
steadily through new legal requirements, such as ``employer mandates''
in the health care law or misguided attempts to regulate farm dust or
the size of our soft drinks. Eventually individuals are constrained by
lack of choice, society drifts without progress or creativity, and the
economy stagnates.
As President Reagan cautioned:
The nature of freedom is that it is fragile. It must be
protected, watched over, sometimes fought over.
Reagan was right. Freedoms must be carefully guarded. We must remain
vigilant against any attempt, large or small, to diminish it. Yet
despite this fragility, our God-given freedom is vast, limited only by
the boundaries we impose on it. Nebraskans understand vastness. We know
what it is like to look up at the night sky and see stars that are
undiminished by city lights. We appreciate the land which appears to
roll without end. Yet it remains in need of care. Vastness gives us
perspective. Some perspective would go a long way in Washington.
Beyond the beltway's chattering class, there exists a Nation of quiet
heroes: parents grateful for the dignity of hard work; entrepreneurs
willing to take great risks to build businesses; farmers and ranchers
dutifully tending the land and livestock; soldiers proudly wearing our
Nation's uniform; veterans bearing scars, both physical and invisible,
reminding us of freedom's price; and children whose simple joy dispels
our cynicism, which can come with everyday struggles.
While our Nation faces many challenges at home and around the world,
only petty politics holds us back from overcoming them. We are a great
and generous nation. We have faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles
before and each generation has conquered them with that uniquely
American combination of grit and grace. I believe, and Nebraskans
believe, our Nation's future is bright.
The United States remains the hope of the world, but this moment,
this uncertain moment, requires real courage from our leaders. That is
not to say the debate over the role of government or taxes or spending
will be resolved by this Congress, but we can do better.
This is what we were sent here to do. Americans are not mediocre.
They are exceptional and deserve exceptional leaders.
Today the whole world mourns the loss of such a leader, an uncommon
woman born into common circumstances, the daughter of a grocer, former
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She was a woman who stood
tall for principle. Yet she had the wisdom to seize opportunities and
work with allies and foes alike to achieve great things for the British
people. Along with her partner and friend Ronald Reagan, she helped to
lead the world away from the long shadow of the Iron Curtain to a
freer, more prosperous time. I admired her political courage to make
those difficult decisions, and I hope to do the same here in
Washington.
I look forward to standing tall for Nebraska values and working with
my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, on commonsense solutions to
these ongoing challenges. I am proud to represent the citizens of
Nebraska here in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Welcoming Senator Fischer
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, Nebraskans have every reason to be proud
of Senator Fischer and her very impressive start here in the Senate.
She has proven herself to be a thoughtful leader in our State, a
reasoned voice in our legislature which listened to her and followed
her leadership. She has been firm in her principles, while also
demonstrating a serious commitment to reaching across the aisle to
solve problems. From successful legislation encouraging rural broadband
to visiting our troops in Afghanistan, Senator Fischer has had a very
active first few months.
Her experience as a State Senator undoubtedly helped her to hit the
ground running here in Washington and also grounded her in the
principles which are so important to Nebraskans, the people she and I
represent. I am proud to say I look forward to teaming up with Senator
Fischer in the weeks and months ahead.
In view of the fact I have announced I won't be seeking reelection,
she will soon be the senior Senator from the State of Nebraska, and I
have no doubt whatsoever she will do a great job. I am proud to be her
colleague and congratulate her on her maiden speech.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from
Nebraska in welcoming our new colleague to the Senate. She is going to
be an incredibly welcome addition to this body. I have had the
privilege of traveling with her on the trip to Afghanistan Senator
Johanns just mentioned, and it was an opportunity for us to visit with
servicemembers from our home State. She had the opportunity to meet
servicemembers from Nebraska, many of whom voted for her but had not
yet had the opportunity to meet her personally as they were serving
overseas at the time of the election. They joined with other Nebraskans
in knowing they made the right choice to represent them.
We heard a wonderful message today, the message of government and the
message of freedom. I wish to join my colleagues in welcoming this
rancher, community volunteer, and former State legislator to the
Senate. She will make, through her grace and her grit, incredible
contributions, not just for her State but also for our Nation and the
betterment of all the people through this great opportunity.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I also wanted to welcome the Senator
from Nebraska. I am honored to be her mentor.
There are three things I wish to say. First, we need a woman rancher
in the Senate. I was sitting here thinking about the last famous woman
who was a rancher, Sandra Day O'Connor. She grew up on a ranch.
Second, she possesses interest in agriculture and the pragmatic,
practical economic issues shared by a lot of us in the Midwest. I am
looking forward to working with her on those issues.
Third, when she speaks about bipartisanship, she means it. She comes
from a background where she actually worked to get things done in her
State legislature. We need more of this in the Senate.
Welcome, Senator Fischer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I wish to add my voice in stating it is wonderful to have
Senator Fischer on my committee, where we are doing good work. We like
to say in the committee the public works side is a very collegial side
and the environmental side is a little less. I am proud to have her
with us working on the new Water Resources Development Act. I look
forward to working closely with her. I congratulate her on her maiden
speech. It is like getting the first scratch on your car: You need to
just do it, and you did it very well.
[[Page S2445]]
Climate Change
I have been coming to the floor on Monday evenings--I don't know how
many people have actually taken note of the fact--every Monday the last
several months to speak about an issue no one in the Senate wishes to
speak about very much. I shouldn't say no one; maybe 25 of us do. The
issue is climate change. I think it is very important we have in the
Record and place in the Record everything we know about climate change
so future generations will see at least a few of us understood the
issue. We are willing to step forward and do something about this
issue.
Gun Control
I wish to say I personally am very grateful to the people of
Connecticut for responding to the Sandy Hook tragedy with such focus,
intelligence, compassion, and common sense. I include in that ``thank
you'' the Democrats and Republicans who came together to pass some of
the most sensible gun laws which balance gun rights with the need for
people to be safe. They need to be safe in a movie theater, safe in the
schools, and safe in their homes. I think the American people totally
understand when 90 percent of them support background checks. I am so
proud of my colleague Senator Feinstein. She and I have been working on
this issue for a long time.
A very long time ago, in the early 1990s, there was a crazed gunman
who walked into a law office with an automatic weapon. He killed
people. One of them was my son's very dear, good friend, killed while
protecting his wife from the shooter. I know from that experience and
watching my son's loss at a relatively young age--right out of law
school--what it did to my son, let alone what it did to the families of
those who were gunned down by this Gian Luigi Ferri, who walked into
101 California Street and sprayed those bullets as fast as he could.
After this tragedy the State of California passed an assault weapons
ban, which has been in place since. Senator Feinstein brought the issue
of the U.S. assault ban to the floor of the Senate. I will never forget
standing here watching the vote, because it was such a close vote. We
did in fact ban those weapons of war. When George Bush was President,
the ban expired and was never put back in.
Where do we stand today? I would say, just to be rhetorical with you,
there are 31,000 reasons to pass sensible gun legislation. This is how
many people die a year at the hands of a gun.
I watched very carefully the Judiciary Committee take up this issue
as they looked at various provisions. I wish to thank them for passing
the provision I worked on with Senator Collins, a bipartisan bill. This
will ensure we have grants to school districts that wish to make some
capital improvements to their plants to, for example, build a perimeter
fence or put in some cameras or hot lines. That particular provision
received strong bipartisan support. I am actually working with Senator
Graham now to expand it even a little more.
However, this is not enough. I think securing our schools is very
important. You should not do so in a one-size-fits-all way. Wouldn't it
be helpful to this great country if we were able to keep guns out of
the hands of known criminals? Wouldn't it be wonderful for our great
Nation if we could keep guns out of the hands of the severely mentally
ill? Wouldn't it be important to expand background checks so people
don't go around the current system and slip through with the
consequence of facing the families who will never, ever be the same
because of what they have lost?
I wish to thank our President. People have said he needs to do so
many things, too many things. A President needs to do a lot of things.
Every day he wakes up there is something else which needs his
attention, but he has never forgotten the promise he made to those
parents of Sandy Hook. It is my understanding they are coming to
Capitol Hill and visiting various Senate offices. They are looking into
the eyes of the Senators if they are able to arrange a meeting with
them and saying: Please, we know you may not like every aspect of the
bill, but don't filibuster the bill. Allow us to take it up and then
vote your conscience. You owe the country.
What would we say to our children who were gunned down? Anyone who
knows a 6-year-old, 5-year-old, 7-year-old child knows the beauty and
joy of that age with everything in front of them. The fact anyone could
hurt a child is beyond our capacity to imagine. To take a gun into a
school and slaughter these children is beyond belief. We must respond.
The way to respond is not to say we are not going to take up this
legislation because we love the National Rifle Association. The
National Rifle Association has a right to its opinion. I will say that
over and over. They have a right to their opinion, as does the ACLU and
each one of us. We all have the right to our opinion. At some point we
need to come together on commonsense legislation when 90 percent of the
people support background checks to keep those weapons out of the hands
of the people who shouldn't have them.
What is taking so long to vote on this and do this for 90 percent of
the people? I listened to one commentator today who said 90 percent of
the people wouldn't even agree today was Monday. When 90 percent of the
people agree with background checks, let's embrace this idea. Who cares
whose idea it was? Who cares who wrote the legislation? What we need to
care about are those children and the thousands of people who are
killed every single year.
I suspect the Presiding Officer, along with me, remembers the Vietnam
war and what it did to this country. It was a tragic war which killed
about 50,000 of our beautiful young people over a 10-year period. It
tore this country apart. It stood this country on its head. We lose
31,000 people every year to gun violence. We should be chomping at the
bit to do this legislation.
Having said that, I know there is some very good work going on right
now across the party lines on the background check. I hope Senator
Manchin and Senator Toomey come together on this issue, because it
would be a breakthrough.
I certainly believe, whether the agreement is forthcoming or not, we
need to take up this bill. This bill is not controversial. It talks
about making sure there are no straw purchases where someone comes in
who is qualified to buy guns, receives them, and turns around and sells
them to someone who isn't qualified. It doesn't pass the test. We have
to increase the penalties for that.
Of course, as I said, the school safety provisions I will be
supporting. As to the ban on assault weapons of my colleague Senator
Feinstein, I have not heard one person explain to me why weapons of war
should be on our streets. I don't see it. I mean the most I can get out
of the other side is, well, that is just a start. If we start there, we
will go there, we will go there, and we will go there. That is a
ridiculous argument to me. We don't need weapons of war on our streets.
We don't need high-capacity clips on our streets.
So I commend the Judiciary Committee for doing its work: Senator
Leahy--I know how hard other Senators on that committee are working--
Senator Schumer and Senator Feinstein. I, myself, and my staff are
working with Senator Graham to even boost up the school security piece.
But we need to respond to 90 percent and 85 percent of the people;
otherwise, I don't know whom we represent. We are sent here by the
people, and the people are looking at this in their sorrow and their
determination to do something about it, and we cannot fail the test.
President Obama, as I started to say before, has not taken his eye
off this ball, just like he hasn't taken his eye off the immigration
ball, the North Korea ball, and the Syria ball. You name it--this
economy, jobs, getting our fiscal house in order--this President has
been handed quite a deck of cards, and he is working on all of it. I
believe he has done what he promised he would do when he made those
promises to the parents of the Sandy Hook Elementary School. I know he
is bringing them here to the Hill, and let me tell them now: You don't
have to come and see me. I am with you, and I will do everything I can.
Don't worry about stopping at our office, just tell us what we can do
to help.
When I watched the Judiciary Committee I was so interested because
Senator Cruz made the point: This is a right to bear arms; it can't be
messed with, period, end of story. The committee pointed out to him--
which I
[[Page S2446]]
thought was quite right--that no right is unlimited. Mr. President, we
have the freedom of speech, but we can't scream out in a theater there
is a fire unless there is a fire. You can't do that. You can't slander
somebody. You can't libel somebody. With every right comes
responsibility.
So my belief is there is a right to bear arms. People who are
qualified to have a weapon can have it. They want it to defend their
families, they want it certainly for hunting, that is fine. That is
fine with me. I support the sensible gun laws we have in California. If
you want to carry a concealed weapon in our State, you have to go to
the sheriff or the police chief and make your case. I support that.
Other colleagues don't support that. I respect that.
The bill they have worked so hard on in the committee is really not
anything radical. They are commonsense steps so people who have a
severe mental illness can't get their hands on a gun, and someone who
knowingly sells guns and ammunition to a criminal or someone who is not
qualified gets punished. That is important. We make sure there is a
background check if you buy a gun at a gun show.
So I guess you can tell I am a little perplexed as to why it is
taking us so long to bring this up. But the good news is Colorado
passed sensible gun laws, Connecticut did, and California has sensible
gun laws. I am so proud of those States. But let's face it, it doesn't
do much good if you live in a State that has these protective laws when
the State next door has no laws and so the most violent criminal can go
and get whatever kind of gun, whatever kind of clip that he wants. I
say he; I don't say she. I don't want to ever have to say she, so I
will say he.
It is time. I just came back from California where I spent the break
and listened to people. They are rooting for us to get something done,
quite clearly. We have had our tragedies--oh, my God--in schools, in
restaurants, in law offices, and we understand. We have 38 million
people in our State. It is crowded. We have to learn to live together
in peace. If we have disagreements, we have to work them out. So
sensible gun laws are at work in our State, but we sure would like to
see those sensible gun laws across the country so that our people are
truly safe.
People talked to me about that, and they talked to me about
immigration reform. I had an incredible meeting in Los Angeles with the
groups of people who are going to be impacted by that. Again, we are so
hopeful we will have that legislation before us soon. In our committee,
the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I chair, we are ready
to go to work with the Water Resources Development Act. This is a
little lighter topic. It deals with our water infrastructure and making
sure our ports are dredged, making sure we are protected from storms.
With the extreme weather we have had--and Hurricane Sandy was certainly
just the latest example--we need to pass this Water Resources
Development Act. So we are ready to go as soon as we finish the gun
debate.
I spoke to Senator Reid, and we are hopeful we will be able to go to
the WRDA bill.
Climate Change
I will close with my Monday night talk on climate. And I have to say,
we face a lot of threats. I have talked about one huge threat we face--
a society that has too many deaths from gun violence--but we also have
a very different kind of threat you don't see as clearly called climate
change, and it is dangerous.
This is my fourth speech on climate. The first time I took to the
floor I talked about the fact that USA Today is doing a year-long
report on climate, and they call their report ``Why You Should Sweat
Climate Change.'' It describes how climate change--they call it climate
disruption--is happening all around us.
I talked about a report on another talk entitled the ``2013 High Risk
List'' that was released by GAO, the Government Accountability Office,
which is a government watchdog agency, and it informs us that climate
disruption and the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather
events such as Sandy threaten our Nation's financial security. Look
what it cost. Sandy was $60 billion, $70 billion, $80 billion, and we
stepped to the plate and helped, as we should have. We can't keep doing
this. We are struggling to get this economy on track.
I also spoke about another aspect, which is the effect on public
health of too much carbon in the air. Today I want to talk about
another issue that I find kind of intriguing because whenever I try to
bring the subject up to colleagues--except for the 25 or so of us who
really care about this--they say to me something like, well, it is
ridiculous for America to act. China has to act first because they are
a terrible actor. If they do not act, what is the point of our taking
the lead?
Well, I have to say that is an argument I find insulting to America.
I don't want to wait for China to take the lead on anything because
they do not share our values. We don't wait for China to act on issues
such as human rights before we protect human rights. We don't wait for
China in terms of the way they treat their workers. We have read about
that. We don't wait for China, especially on environmental issues. We
have to act. China is not a role model. We should be the role model.
China is already suffering serious consequences for failing to
address pollution in the course of its economic development. Remember,
our colleagues are saying: Wait for China. You may not be able to see
anything on this photograph--I can hardly see it and I am standing next
to it--because of the smog and the filth that is in the air in China.
When I made a trip there on climate change and other issues, I never
saw the Sun. One day we went out and our guides were so excited, they
said: It is sunny today. No, it wasn't. There was this layer of smog
and a little bit of light was shining through.
So I say to my colleagues who tell us to wait for China, we should
wait for them--the worst actor on the world stage--before we take up
the most dangerous challenge that we face in terms of science?
China now has hazardous levels of air pollution and toxic emissions.
They do not care. The only reason they are trying to do something about
it now is people don't even want to go there and people are getting
sick and dying there. They need to work their people to their last
breath, and their last breath is coming a little too early.
According to a new scientific study from the Health Effect Institute
on leading causes of death worldwide, outdoor air pollution contributed
to 1.2 million premature deaths in China in 2010, which is 40 percent
of the global total. Here it is. Outdoor air pollution contributed to
1.2 million premature deaths in China in 2010 because their air is so
filthy.
What makes my friends believe they will go after carbon pollution any
more than they went after smog or soot or anything else? They are not.
It is going to get worse.
Urban air pollution is set to become the top environmental cause of
mortality worldwide by 2050, ahead of dirty water and lack of
sanitation. It is estimated that 3.6 million people could end up dying
prematurely from air pollution every year, mostly in China and India.
I am so excited to have this Presiding Officer in the Senate. He is
such a strong supporter of our landmark environmental laws. But we face
the rollback of those laws every day right here in the Senate. I feel
like saying to my colleagues: Go to China.
Let's have another picture of that again. Go to China. This is what
you want America to be? I represent Los Angeles. It used to look a
little like this, not quite as bad. But we did what we had to do. We
said to the polluters: Clean up your act. You have to. It is part of
the cost of doing business, just as emitting carbon has a cost, carbon
is the cause--too much carbon. We need some carbon, but too much carbon
is the cause of climate change, so we have to put a price on it. People
who pollute should have to pay for it, and that will drive us to clean
energy. That is the way it works.
The cost of environmental degradation in China was $230 billion in
2010 or 3.5 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product. The people
there are very afraid to speak out, so when they do speak out you know
something is really bad. In January, outrage boiled over as air
pollution in China reached record levels--well beyond what Western
environmental agencies consider hazardous. The cost of environmental
[[Page S2447]]
damage in China is growing rapidly amid industrialization.
I saw myself the U.S. Embassy in Beijing has used air quality
monitoring technologies in and around their compound so they know if
their little kids can even go outside to play.
We are working to help the Chinese understand what happens when you
have too much pollution. We know it because we are the leader. They are
not the leader; they are the culprit. My colleagues say don't do
anything about carbon pollution because they have to do it first. Don't
wait for them. They don't get it. Maybe by now they are starting to get
it, but I am not waiting for them. We have to do what the President
said, which is take the initiative.
Decades ago, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio was on fire, massive air
pollution hung over our cities, and our lakes were dying from
pollution. The American people demanded action. We didn't wait for
China or anybody else. We passed landmark laws: the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, Superfund, all these
great landmark pieces of legislation that came from the committee on
which I serve. I stand on the shoulders of those former chairmen--
Republican and Democratic--including John Chafee, whom I loved, who was
so strong, and, by the way, strong on sensible gun laws too.
People say, oh, they predicted terrible things would happen to our
society when we passed these landmark laws. But guess what happened
over the last 40 years. America's gross domestic product has risen by
over 200 percent. So this is not a choice between economic development
versus environmental cleanup. They go hand in hand, because if we can't
breathe, we can't work. If we can't breathe, we can't go to school.
When you are in your State and you visit a class--any age but
particularly the younger ones in the elementary schools--ask them how
many of them have asthma or know someone with asthma.
It is a shocking thing that happened to me in an area that has very
clean air--San Francisco--but not clean enough, obviously, because at
least one-third to one-half of the children raised their hand.
We know we are doing the right thing, but we have to protect and
defend against these constant environmental riders. We face them on the
budget. We face them constantly. They want to turn back the clock, and
it makes no sense because we have seen a lot of environmental
technology and growth of jobs--3.4 million people employed in clean
technology. So it is in our Nation's DNA to turn a problem into an
opportunity and not say: Well, yes, this is bad. Superstorm Sandy was
bad. We know it is bad when 99 percent of the scientists say this is
bad and we see what is happening in Greenland and we see what is
happening in the Arctic and we see what is happening with heat waves
and we see and we see, but we just sit back because the oil companies
like to do business the way they are doing it. They don't want to lose
any business. They don't want to see us move to those clean cars, the
clean energy. It is sad.
To say wait for China, the next person who tells me that, I am going
to make them look at this picture. I am going to force them to look at
this picture. Wait for China? They can't see anything there. We have to
rise to this challenge.
According to the National Oceanic Administration, in 2011, there were
14 extreme weather events. What do I mean by extreme weather? Terrible
floods, droughts, storms, wildfires. Each of them cost at least $1
billion. And we had 11 such disasters in 2012. I heard Governor Cuomo
of New York say: We prepared for a once-in-50-years flood, and we are
getting them every year. That is what is happening on the ground. These
extreme weather events reflect an unpaid bill from climate disruption,
a tab that will only grow. I talked about the $60 billion tab from
Superstorm Sandy.
We have started to address carbon pollution. That is the very good
news. President Obama, working with Senators Snowe and Feinstein, did
something very important to make sure we have better fuel economy, and
the standards go into effect between 2012 and 2025. They will provide
huge benefits. Guess what. When this program is implemented, consumers
will save $8,000 over the life of their car. Why? Because they are
getting better fuel economy.
I drive a hybrid Prius in California. I am getting about 140 to 150
miles a gallon because I do my little trips and then I come home and I
plug it in. It is truly remarkable. It is saving our family money and
it is helping to save the environment. This is a win-win-win. But if we
listen to my friends, they look at it as lose-lose-lose. They are dour
about the idea of taking the lead. We have to take the lead.
What we do impacts the world. When our Nation reduces its carbon
pollution, it makes a difference. We account for 20 percent of the
global pollution. China accounts for about the same, but I am not
waiting for our society to look like this.
Here is the great news: When we reduce carbon pollution, there are
side benefits. The side benefits are we are not going to look like this
because we are also going to shift over to those clean technologies,
have less smog, less soot, and our people will be able to breathe.
Peer-reviewed science has forecasted the United States could
significantly contribute to reducing the likelihood that we will avoid
extreme impacts of climate disruption. We know we are already facing
some disruption, but the quicker we move, the more we cut back on that
carbon pollution, the better. Addressing climate change will have many
investments in solar and wind and clean energy, strengthening our
domestic renewable energy sector. I am so proud of California. We are
moving in that direction and doing well.
According to the Pew Charitable Trust, clean energy policies could
provide up to a $2.3 trillion market--not billion but trillion--for
investments in renewable energy. So we can ignore this opportunity to
be a market leader in renewables and then take those inventions all
over the world or we can do it and benefit our economy.
I saw today that former Secretary of State George Schultz, a resident
of my great State and who was part of the Reagan administration, penned
an important article about why we should go to a carbon tax. A carbon
tax, a simple thing: If someone produces carbon pollution, they have to
pay for every ton. His idea is give that back to the American people.
Help them pay for those transition periods of time where we are going
to move toward that clean energy. I am very pleased he wrote that
article, and I am hoping to get him before our environment committee to
talk about it.
We have to step up to the plate on climate. Every one of us has an
obligation to do it. I know it is hard, because with the exception of a
storm such as Sandy and then heat waves that are outrageous, we don't
think about it. I understand why. It is not pleasant. We have so many
challenges on our hands--budget challenges, education challenges,
immigration challenges, gun violence challenges. So if it is not right
in front of us where we see it every day or read about it every day or
it is not hitting our State every day, I understand why some people
would prefer to ignore it. But we owe it to our kids and our grandkids
to be leaders. This is our time. We didn't pick this time to be born to
live, but here we are, and here are these scientists telling us: Wake
up, do something or we are facing a planetary emergency.
Every Monday night that I can be here, I will be here. I want to make
a record, at least for history if not for political action--which is
what I truly want--that we do something. The President visited San
Francisco recently. I hope he will continue to do the right thing. It
is lonely for him because he doesn't have a legislature that gets it.
But let me say to colleagues who are definitely, I can assure you,
not watching this but who may read about this speech: Don't ever say to
me: Let's wait for China because that is an insult to America and it is
an insult to our people. We are going to wait for a country that
doesn't care about its people enough so that the people have to run
around in masks, and they can't even see anything, it is so smoggy and
dirty there. So don't tell me: Wait for China, because that argument--
or as they would say in certain parts of the country, that dog don't
hunt. I don't say that in my part of the country. What I say is that
makes no sense whatsoever.
I will continue to come here in the hopes that we can come together
on this issue, in the hopes that President Obama will keep on moving,
in the hopes that my State and the Northeast and other States are going
to move on this issue. I will protect their right to do it. I will
defend against anyone who comes to roll back the Clean Air Act--which,
unfortunately, Senator Inhofe came at us with an amendment in the
budget that said the Environmental Protection Agency should no longer
have the ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions--imagine--and we
had
[[Page S2448]]
more than 40 votes for that position. That is scary. That is akin to
saying we should stop worrying about smoking and get 45 votes to say it
is no big deal. This is a big deal.
I will just keep on making the talks on Monday nights, if I can. I
wish to thank my staff. They are working so hard to put this together
in a coherent way, so perhaps after 6 months of making these speeches,
we have a story to tell from beginning to end that would be compelling
enough so no one will ever say to me: Let's wait for China to fix their
problem, and people might actually come up and say: Put me on as a
cosponsor on that Sanders-Boxer bill or the Sheldon Whitehouse bill
that puts a price on carbon.
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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Remembering Anne Smedinghoff
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have often come to the floor to talk
about the remote and sometimes dangerous places around the world where
our USAID and State Department Foreign Service Officers serve.
We all know about the difficult and dangerous places our brave
military personnel serve, often at great sacrifice. We sometimes lose
sight of their civilian diplomatic and aid colleagues working side by
side.
I am always impressed that no matter where on the planet one travels,
there is an outpost of American ideals and talent dedicated to
diplomacy, human rights, and helping the less fortunate.
These civilians serving abroad can face a variety of threats. Yet
they do it with dedication, patriotism, and a belief that the United
States should always be a voice for good in the world.
Sadly, today I come here with a heavy heart, as the life of one of
the brightest young officers from my home State of Illinois was cut
short on Saturday in one of those dangerous places.
Twenty-five-year-old Anne Smedinghoff eagerly volunteered to serve
the United States in Afghanistan on her second assignment as a State
Department Foreign Service Officer. She was clear-eyed in her
determination to make a tangible improvement in the lives of those
around her. And after 2 years at our Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela,
Anne joined the Public Diplomacy team at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.
Anne was a bright spot on the Embassy compound, known to her friends
and coworkers as an intelligent, caring, and optimistic young officer
who worked hard to help Afghan women and children.
On Saturday, Anne traveled to Zabul Province to donate books to a
school.
In a cowardly attack, a suicide bomber detonated near her convoy.
Anne was killed along with four other Americans--three U.S.
servicemembers and a Department of Defense civilian. Several others
were wounded.
Anne leaves behind her parents, brother, and two sisters, as well as
countless relatives, friends, and coworkers who deeply mourn her loss,
not only personally but also as an example of the deep dedication our
diplomats demonstrate every day in outposts all around the world.
I know my colleagues join me in our heartfelt condolences to her
family and in our ongoing appreciation for the sacrifices made by our
diplomatic corps.
Tribute to Roger Ebert
This morning I went to a funeral in Chicago at Holy Name Cathedral.
There was a large--in fact, it was a huge crowd. It was a tribute to
America's foremost movie critic Roger Ebert, who passed away last week.
It was my good fortune to know Roger and his wife Chaz and to be one of
his greatest fans. Like myself, he hailed from downstate Illinois. He
was born in Urbana.
In his memoir ``Life Itself,'' he tells an amazingly detailed story
of his youth growing up downstate and how he finally made it to the big
time, the Chicago Sun Times in Chicago, after he had been editor of the
Daily Illini on the campus of the University of Illinois.
Roger came to movie criticism almost by accident, but in no time at
all he set the standard, not only for the United States, maybe for the
world. Rahm Emanuel, our mayor in Chicago, in a tribute to Roger today,
said at the service that he wanted to personally thank Roger Ebert for
sparing us from going to see so many terrible movies. So many of us
would wait before we went to a movie, as the mayor said, to check the
time of the movie but also to check what Roger Ebert thought about the
movie. He was a go-to person when it came to movie criticism.
As you came to read the book about his life, there was much more than
that. He was a brilliant mind. From a very early age, he had an
insatiable appetite for the world around him. He used that in his
skills as a journalist at the Chicago Sun Times and in analyzing the
whole genre of movies, from the earliest classics all the way through
the most modern. That life experience really put him in good stead when
it came to taking a look at movies from the human perspective.
He, of course, became famous on television with Siskel, Roeper, and
so many others. Most of us watched that program with a lot of joy as
the two of them would squabble from time to time over whether a movie
was worth seeing. But there was much more to Roger than that. We came
to know today, in tributes that were paid to him, his deep sense of
social justice, not just in the way he analyzed things but in his life
itself. He really was committed to fairness and to helping the little
guy. It showed in the way he lived his life, in the way he set a
standard as a journalist.
Chaz, his wife, came along late in life for him but became a true
partner. The two of them were inseparable, and they were a dynamic team
in so many ways. But the things about Roger's life that impressed me
the most--the most--was after he was stricken with cancer. It was a
devastating cancer. He went through a series of operations. He
eventually had his face literally deformed by the surgeries, as he lost
his jawbone. Then he lost his ability to speak. Then he lost his
ability to eat--to eat. Yet he soldiered on. He continued to write,
reviewing movies, using computer-assisted voice translation so that he
could express himself through a keyboard in words. He wrote a blog
every day that I used to go to from time to time, not only because it
was so good--so many insights into things I had never thought about--
but also because it was inspiring that he would get up and go to work
every single day when others in that same circumstance would probably
just give up. Roger never gave up. That, to me, showed that he not only
had a great mind and a great heart but a great spirit.
What a turnout today at Holy Name Cathedral for Roger Ebert. The
balcony was full--if there had been a balcony--of fans with two thumbs
up for a great movie critic, a great human being, and a great son of
Illinois.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the close of
my remarks here an excerpt from Roger Ebert's memoir entitled ``Life
Itself'' in which he talks about death and very boldly says, ``I do not
fear death.'' It is an inspiring message that he penned over a year and
a half before he actually died. It is an indication of the kind of
spirit he brought to his life, a spirit we all admire to this day.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Chicago Sun-Times, Apr. 4, 2013]
Roger Ebert: I Do Not Fear Death
(By Roger Ebert)
I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I
believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear.
I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach
path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think
of death as the same state. I am grateful for the gifts of
intelligence, love, wonder and laughter. You can't say it
wasn't interesting. My lifetime's memories are what I have
brought home from the trip. I will require them for eternity
no more than that little souvenir of the Eiffel Tower I
brought home from Paris.
I don't expect to die anytime soon. But it could happen
this moment, while I am writing. I was talking the other day
with Jim Toback, a friend of 35 years, and the conversation
turned to our deaths, as it always does. ``Ask someone how
they feel about death,'' he said, ``and they'll tell you
everyone's gonna die. Ask them, In the next 30 seconds? No,
no, no, that's not gonna happen.
[[Page S2449]]
How about this afternoon? No. What you're really asking them
to admit is, Oh my God, I don't really exist. I might be gone
at any given second.''
Me too, but I hope not. I have plans. Still, illness led me
resolutely toward the contemplation of death. That led me to
the subject of evolution, that most consoling of all the
sciences, and I became engulfed on my blog in unforeseen
discussions about God, the afterlife, religion, theory of
evolution, intelligent design, reincarnation, the nature of
reality, what came before the big bang, what waits after the
end, the nature of intelligence, the reality of the self,
death, death, death.
Many readers have informed me that it is a tragic and
dreary business to go into death without faith. I don't feel
that way. ``Faith'' is neutral. All depends on what is
believed in. I have no desire to live forever. The concept
frightens me. I am 69, have had cancer, will die sooner than
most of those reading this. That is in the nature of things.
In my plans for life after death, I say, again with Whitman:
I bequeath myself to the dirt to grow from the grass I
love,
If you want me again look for me under your boot-soles.
And with Will, the brother in Saul Bellow's ``Herzog,'' I
say, ``Look for me in the weather reports.''
Raised as a Roman Catholic, I internalized the social
values of that faith and still hold most of them, even though
its theology no longer persuades me. I have no quarrel with
what anyone else subscribes to; everyone deals with these
things in his own way, and I have no truths to impart. All I
require of a religion is that it be tolerant of those who do
not agree with it. I know a priest whose eyes twinkle when he
says, ``You go about God's work in your way, and I'll go
about it in His.''
What I expect to happen is that my body will fail, my mind
will cease to function and that will be that. My genes will
not live on, because I have had no children. I am comforted
by Richard Dawkins' theory of memes. Those are mental units:
thoughts, ideas, gestures, notions, songs, beliefs, rhymes,
ideals, teachings, sayings, phrases, cliches that move from
mind to mind as genes move from body to body. After a
lifetime of writing, teaching, broadcasting and telling too
many jokes, I will leave behind more memes than many. They
will all also eventually die, but so it goes.
O'Rourke's had a photograph of Brendan Behan on the wall,
and under it this quotation, which I memorized:
I respect kindness in human beings first of all, and
kindness to animals. I don't respect the law; I have a total
irreverence for anything connected with society except that
which makes the roads safer, the beer stronger, the food
cheaper and the old men and old women warmer in the winter
and happier in the summer.
That does a pretty good job of summing it up. ``Kindness''
covers all of my political beliefs. No need to spell them
out. I believe that if, at the end, according to our
abilities, we have done something to make others a little
happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier,
that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy
is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime
starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is
true no matter what our problems, our health, our
circumstances. We must try. I didn't always know this and am
happy I lived long enough to find it out.
One of these days I will encounter what Henry James called
on his deathbed ``the distinguished thing.'' I will not be
conscious of the moment of passing. In this life I have
already been declared dead. It wasn't so bad. After the first
ruptured artery, the doctors thought I was finished. My wife,
Chaz, said she sensed that I was still alive and was
communicating to her that I wasn't finished yet. She said our
hearts were beating in unison, although my heartbeat couldn't
be discovered. She told the doctors I was alive, they did
what doctors do, and here I am, alive.
Do I believe her? Absolutely. I believe her literally--not
symbolically, figuratively or spiritually. I believe she was
actually aware of my call and that she sensed my heartbeat. I
believe she did it in the real, physical world I have
described, the one that I share with my wristwatch. I see no
reason why such communication could not take place. I'm not
talking about telepathy, psychic phenomenon or a miracle. The
only miracle is that she was there when it happened, as she
was for many long days and nights. I'm talking about her
standing there and knowing something. Haven't many of us
experienced that? Come on, haven't you? What goes on happens
at a level not accessible to scientists, theologians,
mystics, physicists, philosophers or psychiatrists. It's a
human kind of a thing.
Someday I will no longer call out, and there will be no
heartbeat. I will be dead. What happens then? From my point
of view, nothing. Absolutely nothing. All the same, as I
wrote to Monica Eng, whom I have known since she was six,
``You'd better cry at my memorial service.'' I correspond
with a dear friend, the wise and gentle Australian director
Paul Cox. Our subject sometimes turns to death. In 2010 he
came very close to dying before receiving a liver transplant.
In 1988 he made a documentary named ``Vincent: The Life and
Death of Vincent van Gogh.'' Paul wrote me that in his Arles
days, van Gogh called himself ``a simple worshiper of the
external Buddha.'' Paul told me that in those days, Vincent
wrote:
Looking at the stars always makes me dream, as simply as I
dream over the black dots representing towns and villages on
a map.
Why, I ask myself, shouldn't the shining dots of the sky be
as accessible as the black dots on the map of France?
Just as we take a train to get to Tarascon or Rouen, we
take death to reach a star. We cannot get to a star while we
are alive any more than we can take the train when we are
dead. So to me it seems possible that cholera, tuberculosis
and cancer are the celestial means of locomotion. Just as
steamboats, buses and railways are the terrestrial means.
To die quietly of old age would be to go there on foot.
That is a lovely thing to read, and a relief to find I will
probably take the celestial locomotive. Or, as his little
dog, Milou, says whenever Tintin proposes a journey, ``Not by
foot, I hope!''
Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________