[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________