[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17864-17880]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         FAREWELL TO THE SENATE

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am deeply honored to have served for 18 
years as Arizona's 10th Senator and for four terms in the House of 
Representatives before that. Now it is time to move on. My successor, 
Senator-elect Jeff Flake, is a good and honorable public servant who 
will work hard on behalf of our great State of Arizona, and my 
colleague John McCain will continue his long and dedicated public 
service as well. I appreciate the remarks he delivered here yesterday.
  I say thank you to my colleagues for your friendship. It has been a 
privilege working with so many of you on both sides of the aisle. While 
it is true that Washington would benefit from more civility, the Senate 
behind the scenes is an extraordinarily collegial institution, and I 
will certainly miss that aspect of the job.
  I also thank my staff, past and present, for working so many long 
hours and for spending so much time analyzing the issues that will 
determine America's future.
  Farewell speeches offer the opportunity to reminisce about the past. 
I actually do not believe that would be the best use of either your 
time or mine. Instead, I am going to comment on some of the biggest 
public policy changes America faces and recommend principles to guide 
the way forward.
  I was first elected to public office when the Reagan revolution was 
in full swing. Maximizing freedom guided the policies of that era, with 
tremendous success. My goal as a public servant has been to advance and 
maintain a consensus in favor of the so-called three legs of the Reagan 
public policy stool.
  One, dynamic, growth-oriented economics; two, the social values that 
make limited government possible; and three, a national security 
commitment that emphasizes a strong and sovereign America. In each of 
the three areas, maximizing freedom and the positive results that flow 
from that is the goal.
  Let's turn first to economic freedom. The Reagan years showed us that 
expanding economic freedom should be the North Star, the guiding light 
of U.S. policy because it is the best way to achieve sustained and 
broad-based prosperity for all. Free markets, low taxes, and limited 
government allow citizens to use their talents and resources in 
whatever way they choose and keep more of the fruits of their labor.
  I encourage people to invest, work, start businesses, and hire 
others. In other words, free markets promote economic well-being for 
all. Cutting taxes at the margins; that is, reducing the rate of tax on 
the next $1 earned, encourages growth. Raising taxes can have the 
opposite effect. Nobel economist Edward Prescott of Arizona has found 
that higher marginal tax rates are the reason Europeans work one-third 
fewer hours than Americans.
  When marginal rates are lower, prosperity flows to other sectors of 
society, allowing businesses to create jobs and new products, compete 
for workers, raise wages, invest their profits, which then can be lent 
to other entrepreneurs. Everyone gains in a free economy. As John F. 
Kennedy put it, a rising tide lifts all boats.
  Look at what free enterprise has achieved. After President Reagan 
dramatically lowered tax rates and trimmed regulation, income increased 
in every quintile. Millions of new private sector jobs were created and 
the stock market soared, tripling in value over 8 years. The lower tax 
rates, reduced regulatory burden produced a more robust economy and a 
more robust economy meant more revenue for government. Similar results 
attended the tax rate reductions during the Presidency of George W. 
Bush.
  In recent years, many policymakers have forgotten these lessons. 
Since 2008, America's score in the Index of Economic Freedom has 
declined significantly to the point that we are no longer considered a 
free economy but, rather, a mostly free economy. That is what happens 
when we dramatically increase government spending and regulations. Now 
we are on the verge of a massive tax increase which could undermine 
small businesses and stifle economic growth America badly needs.
  Policymakers must focus on the basic laws of economic input. A faulty 
view has gained traction in recent years that consumption fueled by 
government spending actually creates economic growth. It doesn't. It 
just moves money around by taking from people who produced it and could 
productively spend or reinvest it and giving it to government to spend. 
Consumption is the wrong target.
  People only change their spending habits when they know they will 
have greater consistent income over time; for example, when they 
receive a raise at work or get a permanent tax cut. That is why 
temporary stimulus tax gimmicks don't work.
  If the problem with the economy is supposedly a lack of consumption, 
the government cannot solve that problem by spending for us. After all, 
it is our tax money that is being taken out of

[[Page 17865]]

the economy and spent. When government borrows, it will eventually have 
to tax the people to pay back what it has borrowed. There is no free 
lunch. For the government to spend, taxpayers have to give up wealth 
they could have spent or invested. Keynesian demand-side economics 
assumes the government is more efficient at spending our money than we 
are. That assumption has proved to be incorrect time and again.
  Wise policymakers will find the right balance between the need for 
more tax revenue and the need for more economic freedom. They will 
remember there is no fixed economic pie that legislators should try to 
divide. They will remember that labor, capital, and technology are the 
real factors that drive long-term economic growth, not government 
spending. They will stop shackling would-be entrepreneurs and job 
creators with ever more burdensome regulations.
  Here is some more good news about growth-based free enterprise. It is 
the most moral economic system ever devised for three reasons. First, 
it is premised on the truth that success only comes by supplying 
something to others that they need or want. In the bargain, both sides 
benefit. Second, this system has produced incredible wealth around the 
world, lifting millions out of poverty. No economic system can come 
close in helping that many people. So it is the most moral economic 
system in providing material benefits, but that is only part of the 
story.
  Free enterprise provides more than increased income and material 
prosperity. Those things help, but they are not what make humans 
thrive. The key determinant of lasting happiness and satisfaction is 
what American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks has called 
earned success. People are happiest when they do something they are 
good at, when they create value in the lives of others, and genuinely 
earn their income regardless of how much it is.
  Brooks put it very well in his book ``The Battle,'' and I quote:

       Earned success gives people a sense of meaning about their 
     lives. And meaning also is key to human flourishing. It 
     reassures us that what we do in life is of significance and 
     value, for ourselves and for those around us. To truly 
     flourish, we need to know that the ways in which we occupy 
     our waking hours are not based on mere pursuit of pleasure or 
     money or any other superficial goal. We need to know that our 
     endeavors have a deeper purpose.

  The earned success that comes from doing a job well explains why 
fabulously wealthy people often choose not to retire after they have 
earned their fortunes. They are motivated by the satisfaction that 
comes from spending the day productively by creating, innovating, and 
solving problems. They are creating purpose-driven value in their own 
lives and oftentimes tangible value in the lives of others.
  The effect of earned success also explains why people who win the 
lottery often become depressed when they find out that free money 
offers hollow joy. Free enterprise promotes freedom to achieve and, 
therefore, more opportunities to earn success. It is the most moral 
economic system ever created. It is also the fairest system because it 
rewards merit, hard work, and achievement. This is what brought my 
grandparents to this country, along with millions of other immigrants. 
Incidentally, real free enterprise has no place for crony capitalism 
because it doesn't have government picking winners and losers.

  The biggest economic favor policymakers can do for Americans is to 
follow the Reagan legacy and support free market policies that create 
more opportunity, more mobility and more earned success and therefore 
more human flourishing possible for every American. Free enterprise is 
the only economic system that gives us so many opportunities to pursue 
fundamental happiness and lasting satisfaction.
  This brings us to the second leg of the Reagan stool--the question of 
values. President Reagan devoted his Presidency--and indeed his entire 
career in public life--to the expansion of economic freedom. He also 
understood that economic freedom depends on certain cultural 
underpinnings, such as marriage, family, and personal responsibility. 
He understood that family breakdown and social pathologies would 
ultimately make people more reliant on government and thus more eager 
for government to expand, sapping them of individual responsibility and 
the need to care for others in the family or community.
  In short, Reagan understood that economic conservatism would not and 
could not survive unless social conservatism survived too.
  The United States has a stronger philosophical attachment to freedom 
and limited government than any other Nation on Earth. Yet I also 
recognize that many cultural trends are working against us. For 
example, nearly 41 percent of all American children are now born to 
unmarried women, compared with fewer than 11 percent in 1970. Without 
stable, two-parent families, the government bears more of a burden of 
caring for these children. The growth in food stamps and other support 
programs makes the point. At some point, this makes it harder to 
maintain a political consensus that favors limited government, economic 
freedom, and programs that help people out of poverty rather than 
entrenching it. Why?
  To quote Princeton scholar Robert P. George, limited government:

       Cannot be maintained where the marriage culture collapses 
     and families fail to form or easily dissolve. Where these 
     things happen, the health, education, and welfare function of 
     the family will have to be undertaken by someone or some 
     institution, and that will sooner or later be government.

  In other words, in the absence of two-parent families, the government 
fills the financial role of the father, to say nothing of the critical 
roles fathers play. Over time, more and more Americans have come to 
rely on the government to provide for their most basic needs, needs 
that two-parent families have traditionally supported. Those Americans 
are now competing for increasingly scarce resources.
  This is not to judge the status of these families or to suggest it is 
in any way inappropriate for government to provide the help. It is 
precisely because we do care that we provide help through government 
and other institutions. But that is an action to ameliorate the effects 
of a condition, not to change the underlying condition.
  I believe we must do all we can to revive the marriage culture, 
increase family stability, and ensure that more children grow up in 
two-parent households. Strong families have always been the key to 
upward mobility and economic security.
  If we want to remain an aspirational society, a society where 
children have the opportunities and the resources to pursue their 
dreams and create a better life, we must encourage young Americans to 
embrace what Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings 
Institution have called the success sequence. That sequence is very 
simple: Complete high school, get a full-time job, get married before 
having kids. If we follow that sequence, we are virtually guaranteed to 
avoid poverty.
  The marriage culture is fighting an uphill battle against forces that 
threaten to overwhelm them. I urge everyone who believes in limited 
government, economic freedom, and the real self-worth and well-being of 
our children to do their part in rebuilding the institution of 
marriage. No other social cause or campaign is more vital to America's 
future.
  When it comes to shaping our culture, we must also improve the 
quality of our students' civic education. I fear that many American 
students are graduating from high school and college with only the 
vaguest knowledge of our founding and our Constitution and what it 
means to be an American. It is hard to defend rights if we don't know 
what they are and where they came from.
  Schools shape students' views about our priorities as a society and 
what principles are worth standing for. Instead of teaching history and 
the fundamentals of America's founding, many curriculums focus on 
small, politically correct topics such as gender, class, diversity, and 
ethnicity. The entertainment industry and many major media outlets, 
too, dwell on these topics and lend them outsized importance.

[[Page 17866]]

  These topics tend to be political and emphasize what divides us. They 
ignore our common heritage of freedom, equality, self-reliance, human 
dignity, faith, and community. As William Bennett recently wrote: When 
we look at what students are being taught, it is easy to see why more 
of them prefer socialism over free market capitalism. He writes: 
``Politics is downstream from the culture.''
  Bennett also noted that Plato said the two most important questions 
in society are: Who teaches the young and what do we teach them.
  I believe we need to think long and hard about these two questions. 
It is time to have a serious discussion about civics education. If 
Americans don't understand or appreciate the foundations of our 
republican government, those foundations will gradually erode. In that 
sense, political and historical literacy is critical to the 
preservation of our constitutional freedoms.
  As President Reagan famously said:

       Freedom is never more than one generation away from 
     extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the 
     bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on 
     for them to do the same.

  Moving to the last leg of the Reagan policy stool: national security. 
I have tried to follow the Reagan legacy of pursuing peace through 
strength. As President Reagan once said, ``Of the four wars in my 
lifetime, none came about because America was too strong.''
  President Reagan knew that weakness tempts aggression, and he 
believed that deterrence meant ``making sure any adversary who thinks 
about attacking the United States . . . concludes the risks to him 
outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won't 
attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only 
invites aggression.''
  American strength remains the best guarantor against major armed 
conflict between nation-states. While it is not our role to police the 
world--and we couldn't do it in any event--it is also true that we are 
the indispensable Nation to help safeguard liberal values around the 
world.
  For America to continue its leadership role, however, we must have a 
military with both the capability and the flexibility to address a wide 
range of challenges. And, yes, it means adequately funding the military 
requirements, among other things, by avoiding the devastating 
sequestration of necessary defense investments. I wish to speak to four 
of our challenges: nuclear modernization, missile defense, terrorist 
threats, and transnational law.
  For the first time in the history of U.S. nuclear policy, the 
President has placed nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, rather 
than nuclear deterrence, ``atop the U.S. nuclear agenda.''
  Ironically, more treaties or unilateral actions that take us closer 
to nuclear disarmament will not help us reduce the dangers we face 
today. Such actions will only serve to make our allies who depend on 
U.S. nuclear guarantees more nervous, while potentially weakening the 
credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence. Senate support for the 2010 New 
START treaty was based upon a commitment to modernize our aging nuclear 
complex and weapons. As that commitment starts to decay, it will become 
increasingly difficult to rebuild the responsive nuclear infrastructure 
that even the President agreed is necessary for further nuclear 
reductions as well as the continued credibility of the U.S. nuclear 
arsenal. Note that I said ``for further nuclear reductions.'' They are 
literally dependent upon the U.S. modernization.
  The New START proceedings made it clear that the nuclear balance 
between the United States and Russia under New START force levels would 
be stable--except, of course, for the huge diversity--or disparity, I 
would say--in tactical nuclear weapons that Russia enjoys. But under 
this stability, there would be no incentives to strike first during a 
crisis nor would there be incentives to grow our respective nuclear 
arsenals in the future. We should, therefore, think very carefully 
before we contemplate any changes to longstanding U.S. nuclear 
deterrence policies or pursue further reductions in support of the 
President's disarmament agenda.
  We absolutely cannot know for certain that fewer numbers of weapons 
will make us safer. In fact, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft 
recently reminded us ``that strategic stability is not inherent with 
low numbers of weapons; indeed, excessively low numbers could lead to a 
situation in which surprise attacks are conceivable.''
  Policymakers would do well to heed the advice of Winston Churchill 
offered in his last address to the United States Congress. He said:

       Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic 
     weapon until you are sure, and more than sure, that other 
     means of preserving peace are in your hands.

  Against the backdrop of more than 100 million war casualties from 
conventional weapons in just the 30 years before development of the 
atomic weapon, Churchill's advice is sobering indeed.
  The second challenge we face is with respect to missile defense. 
Recent events illustrate the importance of missile defense in today's 
security environment. Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system 
protected its population against rocket attacks, giving Israeli 
military and political authorities the time and the space necessary to 
avoid a devastating ground war, which is ultimately what made a truce 
possible.
  As Secretary of Defense Panetta said at the time, ``Iron Dome does 
not start wars, it helps prevent wars.''
  Elsewhere in the world, Turkey has requested NATO Patriot batteries 
to protect it against Syrian ballistic missiles potentially armed with 
chemical weapons. Meanwhile, Japan, South Korea, and the United States 
recently activated their ballistic missile defense systems in response 
to North Korea's long-range ballistic missile launch--yet another 
reminder that the threat doesn't stand still.
  In response to Iran's development of nuclear weapons and longer range 
ballistic missiles, NATO has agreed to support the deployment of short, 
medium, and long-range missile defense systems to protect alliance 
territory and thereby avoid potential Iranian nuclear blackmail. So the 
benefits of defense are well appreciated, especially by those most 
directly affected or threatened.
  We have proven that it is possible to hit a bullet with a bullet, and 
we have debunked the Cold War-era argument that missile defense 
contributes to a new arms race. In fact, since the United States 
withdrew from the ABM Treaty, we have reduced the number of deployed 
nuclear weapons from 6,000 under START to 1,700 under the Moscow Treaty 
to 1,550 under the New START treaty. We must continue to disabuse some 
of the notion that U.S. vulnerability to the Russian and Chinese 
nuclear arsenals is a source of stability when, in fact, the most 
important constitutional and moral duty of any President is to protect 
the American people.
  We have made some progress in deploying domestic missile defenses 
since the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, though we 
have also squandered opportunities to do more. Here are just a few 
missile defense challenges for the future.
  First, over the past 4 years, the Obama administration has 
consistently reduced funding for missile defense. Second, it has 
refocused funding on regional missile defenses that protect others at 
the expense of protecting the homeland of the United States and 
developing future technologies. Third, the administration has scaled 
back the number of ground-based interceptors protecting the homeland 
from 54 to only 30--numbers that do not begin to meet the standard 
established by the Missile Defense Act of 1999, which required a 
defense capable of addressing accidental and unauthorized attacks from 
any source. And, fourth, the administration has no plans to modernize 
interceptors that are more than 20 years old. That is the technology 
that is protecting America today, and it is, therefore, unlikely to 
keep up with future threats.
  As I said, there is very little funding devoted to new breakthrough 
technologies that could provide even more

[[Page 17867]]

effective defenses for the United States, such as lasers and space-
based interceptors.
  We should remember, as NORTHCOM Commander General Jacoby has 
explained to Congress, that ``no homeland task is more important than 
protecting the United States from a limited ICBM attack. . . . ''
  Finally, one of the greatest challenges we face today stems from 
Russian attempts to limit the development and deployment of U.S. and 
allied missile defense systems. The United States cannot allow Russia 
to dictate to us limits on the capabilities of U.S. missile defenses. 
If they could be effective against a Russian launch, then so be it. 
That is what it means to protect Americans from potential threats. If 
the Russians argue that they pose no possible threat, then our missile 
defense should be irrelevant to them.
  From negotiations on the New START treaty to threatening the United 
States and NATO in an attempt to limit our planned deployments in 
Europe, the Russians have never abandoned their goal of limiting the 
effectiveness of U.S. missile defense. The answer is not ``reset'' but 
recommitment to the principle that the most moral way to protect the 
American people from missile attacks is by missile defense.
  The third national security challenge I wish to briefly discuss is 
the threat of political Islam. To defeat an enemy, we must first know 
the enemy, and that includes calling them by their name: radical 
Islamists who seek to impose their ideology to rule others--to govern 
political, social, and civic life, as well as religious life.
  Intelligence is key to defeating political Islam. The Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and the PATRIOT Act are good 
examples of the tools we need to know what our enemies are planning and 
who they are before they strike. These tools cannot be allowed to 
expire.
  The PATRIOT Act reflects a recognition that investigators charged 
with preventing acts of terrorism should have at least the same 
investigative tools as Federal agents charged with targeting mobsters 
or health care fraud.
  The fourth and last national security challenge I will mention is the 
rise of transnational law, which poses a serious threat to American 
sovereignty. Our government was founded on the principle that laws 
should be made through the democratic process so that the people could 
hold their legislators accountable. The American people elected their 
own representatives and, therefore, control their own affairs. That is 
the theory.
  Americans want the benefits of global cooperation based on widespread 
acceptance of useful international ``rules of the road,'' of course. 
But such rules, like our domestic laws, should be adopted through 
democratic processes that assure accountability on the part of the 
legislators. They should not be imposed by international bodies with 
zero accountability to the American people.
  The rise of global governance, I believe, challenges this principle. 
By ``global governance'' I mean the use of multilateral treaties and 
other agreements to delegate power on matters such as the environment, 
natural resources, and individual rights to new international bodies 
with broad powers and little or no political accountability. Such 
issues have traditionally been decided by the laws of individual 
nations, not by international bureaucracies. Some treaties would 
directly implicate U.S. national security flexibility or capability.
  One such treaty was defeated by the Senate in 1999--the Comprehensive 
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, which would have jeopardized America's nuclear 
deterrent by preventing us from ever again conducting tests of our 
nuclear weapons. We should never give up the right to verify that our 
nuclear deterrent works. It is critical that we know, that our allies 
who rely on these weapons know, and that our potential adversaries 
know, or our weapons will not have deterrent effect. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat this treaty again should it come up before the 
Senate in the President's second term.
  In conclusion, in all three areas I have discussed here, we have had 
successes and we have had failures. I think of what Margaret Thatcher 
said as she was leaving public office; that there are no permanent 
victories in politics. What she meant was one can leave office having 
upheld their principles and having accomplished some of their policy 
goals, but that doesn't mean there will always be a consensus in favor 
of their preferred policies or that their accomplishments would not be 
reversed in the future.
  As I look back on my 26 years in Congress and my 18 years in the 
Senate, I am deeply proud of everything we have accomplished--from tax 
relief and welfare reform to missile defense and nuclear policy, not to 
mention things of primary importance to my State. But I also understand 
that political victories can be ephemeral because in a democracy, a 
debate over these issues never really ends. It is always ongoing.
  I will miss being involved in these important debates and decisions 
directly. From now on, my role in these matters will be as a private 
citizen, but I still aim to be involved.
  It has been an honor--really the privilege of a lifetime--to serve, 
and it is difficult to say goodbye. But I will depart Capitol Hill with 
enormous faith in the American people, a profound appreciation for the 
miracle of the American Republic, and a resilient optimism about 
America's future.
  I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin.). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about our 
colleague, Senator Jon Kyl. I have always appreciated his comments, his 
thoughtfulness, his patriotism, and his intellectual leadership in the 
Senate. He will be sorely missed after 18 years in the Senate. I am 
sorry the Senate will be losing Senator Kyl's extraordinary talents, 
but as he retires from politics at the end of this month, I know he 
will remain a powerful force in the world of ideas.
  Time magazine named Jon one of the 10 best Senators in 2006. At the 
time, he said: ``You can accomplish a lot if you're not necessarily out 
in front on everything.'' That echoes Ronald Reagan's comment--one of 
his favorite slogans: ``There is no limit to what a man can do . . . if 
he doesn't mind who gets the credit.''
  Over the last 18 years, Jon Kyl has accomplished a lot in this 
Chamber, and he has never seemed to care one bit about who got the 
credit. When he announced his retirement, the Wall Street Journal said 
Jon ``has been as consequential as any Republican in Congress over the 
last decade and a half.'' That is quite a compliment and thoroughly 
deserved.
  As you could tell from his comments, Jon has spent a career promoting 
the Reagan legacy. After he leaves, many of us will be promoting the 
Kyl legacy.
  He is a person of strong principle, a man deep in knowledge of public 
policy, and a person--uncharacteristic in politics--of remarkable 
humility. Here is how one writer described his unique skill set. 
Senator Kyl, he wrote, ``is one of those rare breeds who seem to make 
no strong enemies even while holding firm to a consistent philosophy.'' 
As you have heard, he has been a leader on things ranging as wide as 
missile defense to criminal justice to tax policy.
  One of the things I have admired about Senator Kyl is he always seems 
to be among the most knowledgeable people in any room at any given time 
on any given topic that is under discussion. When he speaks, people 
listen. But he often willingly pushes others into the spotlight rather 
than himself. It is because he thinks tactically: How can I advance 
this policy or this idea, not: How can I advance myself in the public 
spotlight.
  That certainly has been my experience with Senator Kyl. But I would 
add something else. He has also been a courageous intellectual leader. 
He has consistently led on complex issues that other Senators have 
ignored or neglected or just have a difficulty understanding, complex 
topics such as nuclear modernization, missile defense, and 
transnational law, each of which he mentioned in his remarks just a 
moment ago. It is not easy to become the

[[Page 17868]]

Senate's top authority on nuclear weapons, but Jon Kyl is, and it is 
not the best way to get your face on cable news. Not a lot of air time 
is given to people who want to talk about such arcane but important 
topics.
  I have also watched Senator Kyl over the past couple of years 
cultivate more junior Senators and help them become experts in their 
own right on all of his favorite issues. As a matter of fact, I 
attended a meeting on that just today where he was trying to bring 
along a number of us on the nuclear issue. Senator Kyl is always 
thinking about the future, always thinking about the next generation of 
American leaders and the challenges they will face.
  Jon quoted Margaret Thatcher, reminding us there are no permanent 
victories in politics. He understands that the debate over limited 
government and a robust national defense will never be over, it will 
never be completely won and, hopefully, never completely lost. That is 
why he has worked so hard to educate and encourage other younger 
Senators who will be fighting these battles long after he leaves the 
Chamber.
  As I mentioned earlier, Jon Kyl is tremendously principled. He is a 
proud conservative, but he is also a fairminded and enormously 
effective legislator. Last February the New York Times declared that he 
``may be [one of] the rare member[s] of his party who combines the 
trust of conservatives, policy smarts, and forcefulness that are needed 
to secure deals that can pass.''
  It has been my great honor and privilege to work with Jon Kyl on such 
issues as immigration reform and criminal law, among others. He is a 
true patriot, a true intellectual in the greatest sense of that term, 
and a truly effective Senator for his State and for the Nation. After 
more than a quarter century of public service, including 18 years here 
in the Senate, Jon Kyl deserves a happy and healthy and successful 
retirement, but he will be sorely missed by everybody in this Chamber.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to echo the comments of the 
distinguished Senator from Texas. I have served with Jon Kyl for his 
whole time in the U.S. Senate, and he is a lawyer's lawyer. I do not 
say that lightly. I do not consider many lawyers a lawyer's lawyer. Jon 
is an excellent lawyer, one of the best I have met and certainly one of 
the best ever to sit in Congress.
  He also does not go off the deep end. When he speaks, anybody with 
brains should listen. Plus, he is a tremendous example not just to some 
of us older guys around here but especially to the new Senators and 
others who have come into this body. He has been a pivotal member of 
the Judiciary Committee, including when I chaired it and when we did so 
many interesting things. He was a pivotal member on leading to a 
balanced budget in the middle of the 1990s. Jon has argued for that, 
has argued for these types of fiscal restraints and responsibilities 
like no one I know.
  Jon is one of the most honest and decent and credible people I have 
known in the whole time I have been in the U.S. Senate. He has been an 
excellent leader for our party. As assistant minority leader and 
assistant majority leader, he has been a great, great leader in our 
party. We have all trusted him because he is a person who is 
trustworthy. We have all listened to him because he is a person worth 
listening to. We have all shared the pains of this place with him as 
friends and brothers working together, we hope in the best interests of 
our country. And there is no question in anybody's mind on either side 
of this floor, when it comes to Jon Kyl, they know he is a true 
American patriot who has done everything he could while he has been 
here to keep this country strong.
  I have to say I have always been impressed with Jon Kyl. I have 
watched him close up for all these years, but I do not know that I have 
ever been more impressed than when he led the fight with regard to 
nuclear weapons and with regard to START. He not only was well 
informed, he was the best informed, and this body should have listened 
to everything he said. I am sure most people did.
  I do not think any of us would fail to try to serve this country to 
the best of our ability. All I can say, in closing, is that Jon has 
served this country to the best of his ability, and his abilities are 
extraordinary.
  I personally count him as a friend. When I had this very interesting 
reelection this last time, with what seemed like the whole world coming 
down on me for some reason, one of the first people to offer help was 
Jon Kyl. He came to Utah, and it meant so much to me.
  All I can say is, wherever Jon goes after this is over, they are 
going to be lucky people to have him around. And I wish him all the 
success in the world. He deserves it. I hope he and his wife and 
family--whom I like very much--will have a wonderful, glorious 
existence from this day onward.
  We are going to miss you, Jon. We are going to miss your intellectual 
capacity. I am personally going to miss your legal capacity. And all of 
these other accolades that have been given your way, I will miss all of 
those too. But you have a friend here, and this friendship, in my 
opinion, is an eternal one, and anything I can ever do for you, I will 
certainly try because I know you would never ask for anything that was 
not accurate or right. So I wish you Godspeed, and know there are a lot 
of us who really, really hate to see you go.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with 
the remarks of Senator Cornyn and Senator Hatch. Both of them have 
spoken eloquently and correctly about the absolutely unique and 
exceptional contributions Jon Kyl has made to America and to the U.S. 
Senate.
  There is no Senator I have admired more, no Senator I look to more to 
decide how to cast my vote, and I mean that absolutely as a fact. The 
words they have used I am not so eloquent as to say, but they do not 
overstate the value of my friend Jon Kyl.
  His statement that we just heard is a comprehensive analysis, 
overview of the current situation of this great Republic of which we 
are a part. He meant every word of it. One of the most remarkable 
things about it is that on every vote, every time an issue came up, 
those are the values he sought to advance. And sometimes you have to 
take a step back to gain two steps forward, but Senator Kyl always had 
a vision for what America should be. I believe it is the correct vision 
that we have inherited from our ancestors that has made this country so 
productive and so valuable. Everything he has done, every effort he has 
made has been to advance those good values--a great America, a decent 
America. And he has understood it.
  When he talks about free enterprise, he explains why that is 
preferable to other forms of distribution of wealth. Would you rather 
have politicians distribute the wealth in this country? He can 
articulate that in a way that emphasizes the moral power of it, the 
need to have peace in the world, but how do you have it? Do you get 
peace through weakness or do you have peace through strength? And are 
the nuclear issues necessary to our posture as a strong nation in the 
world that is resistant and deters attack? Yes, they are. He 
understands those issues.
  I serve on the Armed Services Committee. Jon does not, but he knows 
more about that issue than I do. And I have found his leadership so 
valuable because it is a thankless task. People do not want to talk 
about it, but he has talked about it. He knows it is important, even 
though no one would give him credit politically for being engaged in 
those issues. But it is important for America, and he is willing to 
commit himself to that.
  I will join with Senator Hatch and Senator Cornyn in my admiration 
for Jon's service on the Judiciary Committee. That is an important 
committee, and he has been a rock-solid member of it. Even though he 
has been in the leadership, so therefore he did

[[Page 17869]]

not chair the committee--which he would have been one of the great 
chairmen we would have ever had of that committee--but he has moved the 
committee and brought forth issues and advocated principles that are 
consistent with the great American rule of law.
  Today we just got word that Robert Bork died. He had a classical view 
of how the Constitution should be interpreted and one I basically share 
for the most part. I think Jon has. He understands those issues. He is 
able to communicate the great richness of the American heritage of law 
to the common people in language people can understand, but he is also 
capable of reading the most complex legal document and being able to 
spot problems with it and advocate changes in law that are 
sophisticated in the most technical details.
  I guess I would have to say Senator Hatch is correct. This Senate, in 
my view, has never had a better lawyer than Jon Kyl. He has argued 
cases before the Supreme Court in his private practice days. Not many 
have been a part of that.
  So whether we are talking about the crime victims advocacy efforts he 
has made over a long period of time here, recognizing that the law 
should be in existence to advance and protect innocent people against 
the wrongdoers, and that we ought not to become so obsessed with 
defendants' rights that we do not remember the victims who deserve 
vindication and remuneration for the crimes that have been put upon 
them.
  There are other things I could say and other issues we have joined 
in, that we have fought on. On more than one occasion, Jon has felt 
something was important. Sometimes those issues were not very popular, 
but he believed they were important and would rally people. I have 
joined with him. We have had some good battles. We have won a few, 
frankly, several I never thought we were going to win. But somehow, 
with his legislative skill, his determination, his feisty spirit, we 
stayed in there and bad things did not occur, at least from my 
perspective, that may have occurred otherwise.
  It is a great pleasure to have served with Jon. I consider him--I 
know the grammar is not perfect--our most invaluable Senator. So we are 
going to be losing someone of great national importance. I know he will 
be active. He has got a fabulous wife, Caryll. They have been partners 
for so many years. I enjoy watching them and how they interact as a 
family. He has the values that reflect the highest qualities of 
American life.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am joining my colleagues in rising today 
to pay honor and respect to the service of Jon Kyl, a tribute to his 
passion for public service and his State of Arizona and his country in 
this Congress for 26 years. I echo all the sentiments and all the words 
that have been said by our colleagues. There are not enough adjectives 
to adequately describe the extraordinary service Jon has provided to 
this country.
  I have had the pleasure of serving alongside him in the House of 
Representatives, in the Senate--two times, as some know. I served 
before and then was out for 12 years and then came back. In my many 
years of service here, it is hard to think of a person who has been 
more influential and been more of someone I wanted to emulate and to 
learn from and to look at as a wise counsel than Jon Kyl.
  He has been described as an influential member of the Judiciary and 
Finance Committees. Yes, he has been an outspoken leader on issues of 
very significant importance to this country--significant issues 
including the landmark Crime Victims Rights Act, progrowth tax policies 
that we have been debating here, patient-centered health care reform, 
and antiterrorism laws, nuclear proliferation, safeguarding our nuclear 
stockpile. On and on it could go.
  Jon recently called me to his office and said, you know, there are 13 
separate things here that have been the highest priority for me. Now 
not many Senators will tell you they have got 13 high-priority issues 
they not only are interested in but have drilled down in a unique, in-
depth understanding of those particular issues. Jon said: One thing I 
want to accomplish before I leave is to make sure someone will pick up 
the ball and take the baton and carry on those issues after I leave.
  That is an extraordinary statement. First of all, the breadth and the 
depth of his engagement and his knowledge, which I do not think any one 
person here--it would take many--could begin to duplicate, but also the 
leadership that he has provided on issues of significant importance to 
the future of this country. Jon was listed as one of the world's 100 
most influential people--well-deserved recognition.
  In Washington, he has been labeled as one of the 25 hardest working 
lawmakers. I cannot think of anybody who stands higher in that list 
than Jon Kyl. My mental image of Jon Kyl is Jon striding through the 
Halls of Congress literally leaning into the wind. It is as if there is 
a 60-mile gale coming in his face, and Jon is leaning into it with 
determination. I see his staff nodding their heads here. It has got to 
be hard to stay up with Jon when he has his mind on something and he is 
determined to get something done. He is leaning in like a ship into a 
gale, moving forward to try to accomplish his mission.
  We all say when someone leaves here, we are losing someone whom maybe 
we cannot replace. That may or may not be true. In my first iteration, 
when I gave my farewell speech, I think there were probably a lot of 
people who said: We can find a substitute for Coats; that will not be 
too hard. It is true. Finding a replacement for Jon Kyl is a tall task. 
It is going to be very hard to find someone who has the passion for 
this, his service, the intelligence and the knowledge of the issues he 
engages in, the leadership qualities he provides, the counsel he 
provides to all of us. Jon Kyl is the go-to guy. Jon Kyl is the person 
you go to to say: Jon, how do we get this done? What should our 
strategy be? If you are on board, I think we can accomplish this. I 
know I am repeating a lot of what has been said already about Jon and 
will be said by others here who will come down, but to find someone 
this grounded in his endeavors is hard to find.
  Jon is also grounded in his faith, his faith in God, his faith in 
America, his faith in his constituents, his faith in this institution, 
not a perfect institution, one which we are struggling in right now, 
but his faith that in the end we are here to do what is best for 
America. In the end, we will need to make hard decisions. Jon has 
always been one leading that effort, always one willing to stand up to 
make those decisions.
  I count him as a friend. Marsha and I wish you, Jon, and Caryll, all 
the best in this next chapter of your life. I am comforted by the fact 
that you will not be more than a phone call away, and the fact that I 
am going to need wise counsel on a number of things; more than that, 
that we can retain a friendship which we have enjoyed in our service 
together on two separate occasions interrupted by 12 years. But I am 
looking forward to continuing to enjoy our time together. I want to 
wish you and Caryll not only our thanks, thanks from the people I 
represent and thanks from America for your service, but the very best 
wishes for both of you in the future.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3371, as Modified

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to return to 
Coburn amendment No. 3371.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified 
with the changes I will now send to the desk.

[[Page 17870]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec. 52007.  (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency (in this section referred to as 
     the ``Administrator'') shall review the public assistance per 
     capita damage indicator and shall initiate rulemaking to 
     update such damage indicator. Such review and rulemaking 
     process shall ensure that the per capita indicator is fully 
     adjusted for annual inflation for all years since 1986, by 
     not later than January 1, 2016.
        (b) Not later than 365 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator shall--
       (1) submit a report to the committees of jurisdiction in 
     Congress on the initiative to modernize the per capita damage 
     indicator; and
       (2) present recommendations for new measures to assess the 
     capacities of States to respond and recover to disasters, 
     including threat and hazard identification and risk 
     assessments by States and total taxable resources available 
     within States for disaster recovery and response.
       (c) As used in this section, the term ``State'' means--
       (1) a State;
       (2) the District of Columbia;
       (3) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
       (4) any other territory or possession of the United States; 
     and
       (5) any land under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe, as 
     defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).

     SEC. 1106. PROHIBITION ON EMERGENCY SPENDING FOR PERSONS 
                   HAVING SERIOUS DELINQUENT TAX DEBTS.

       (a) Definition of Seriously Delinquent Tax Debt.--In this 
     section:
       (1) In general.--The term ``seriously delinquent tax debt'' 
     means an outstanding debt under the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 for which a notice of lien has been filed in public 
     records pursuant to section 6323 of that Code.
       (2) Exclusions.--The term ``seriously delinquent tax debt'' 
     does not include--
       (A) a debt that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant 
     to an agreement under section 6159 or 7122 of Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986; and
       (B) a debt with respect to which a collection due process 
     hearing under section 6330 of that Code, or relief under 
     subsection (a), (b), or (f) of section 6015 of that Code, is 
     requested or pending.
       (b) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act or an amendment made by this Act, none of the 
     amounts appropriated by or otherwise made available under 
     this Act may be used to make payments to an individual or 
     entity who has a seriously delinquent tax debt during the 
     pendency of such seriously delinquent tax debt.

     SEC. 1107. PROHIBITION ON EMERGENCY SPENDING FOR DECEASED 
                   INDIVIDUALS.

       None of the amounts appropriated by or otherwise made 
     available under this Act may be used for any person who is 
     not alive when the amounts are made available. This 
     prohibition shall not apply to funeral costs.

     SEC. 1108. PROHIBITION ON EMERGENCY SPENDING FOR FISHERIES.

       None of the funds appropriated or made available in this 
     Act may be used for any commercial fishery that is located 
     more than 50 miles outside of the boundaries of a major 
     disaster area, as declared by the President under the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170 et seq.), for Hurricane Sandy.

     SEC. __. RETURN OF UNUSED EMERGENCY FUNDS.

       (a) Return of Funds.--Any amount made available by this Act 
     to carry out a program that is designated as an emergency and 
     2 years after the date of enactment of this Act remains 
     available for obligation or has been obligated but not yet 
     spent shall be rescinded and returned to the Treasury to 
     reduce the deficit.
       (b) Program Termination.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, any new program authorized and funded 
     by this Act is terminated 2 years after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (c) Match Sunset.--The 90/10 cost share provided in this 
     Act shall expire 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       Sec. 1106. (a) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Future 
     Disaster Recovery Contracts Not Competitively Awarded.--
     Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act 
     may not be obligated or expended for any contract awarded 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act in support of 
     disaster recovery if such contract was awarded using other 
     than competitive procedures as otherwise required by chapter 
     33 of title 41, United States Code, section 2304 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       (b) Current No-bid Contracts.--
       (1) Review of contracts.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, Federal agencies shall 
     conduct a review of all contracts to support disaster 
     recovery that were awarded before the date of the enactment 
     of this Act using other than competitive procedures in order 
     to determine the following:
       (A) Whether opportunities exist to achieve cost savings 
     under such contracts.
       (B) Whether the requirements being met by such contracts 
     can be met using a new or existing contract awarded through 
     competitive procedures.
       (2) Competitive award of contracts.--If a Federal agency 
     determines pursuant to the review under paragraph (1) that 
     either subparagraph of that paragraph applies to a contract 
     awarded using other than competitive procedures, the agency 
     shall take appropriate actions with respect to the contract, 
     whether to achieve cost savings under the contract, to use a 
     new or existing contract awarded through competitive 
     procedures to meet applicable requirements, or otherwise to 
     discontinue of the use of the contract.
       Strike section 1003 and insert the following:
       Sec. 1003. None of the funds provided in this title to the 
     Department of Transportation or the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development may be used to make a grant unless the 
     Secretary of such Department notifies the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations and posts the notification on 
     the public website of that agency not less than 3 full 
     business days before either Department (or a modal 
     administration of either Department) announces the selection 
     of any project, State or locality to receive a grant award 
     totaling $500,000 or more.
       In title IV, under the heading ``construction (including 
     transfer of funds)'' under the heading ``Corps of Engineers--
     Civil'' under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY'' under 
     the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL'' strike 
     ``Provided further, That cost sharing for implementation of 
     any projects using these funds shall be 90 percent Federal 
     and 10 percent non-Federal exclusive of LERRDs:'' and insert 
     ``Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine the 
     Federal and non-Federal cost share for implementing any 
     project using these funds in accordance with section 103 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2213):''.
       Sec. ___. Section 406(b)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5172(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Minimum''; and
       (2) by striking ``not less than'' and inserting ``not more 
     than 75 percent''.
       On page 16, strike lines 17 through 20 and insert 
     ``Provided''.
       On page 24, line 21, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``; Provided further, That the amounts made 
     available under this heading may not be used to assist a 
     building, a mobile home, or any personal property that is 
     located in an area that has been identified by the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency as 
     an area having special flood hazards and in which the sale of 
     flood insurance has been made available under the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968, unless, on the date on which the 
     disaster to which the assistance relates occurred, the 
     building, mobile home, or personal property was covered by 
     flood insurance in an amount at least equal to its 
     development or project cost (less estimated land cost) or to 
     the maximum limit of coverage made available with respect to 
     the particular type of property under the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968, whichever is less.''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would like to talk about per capita 
damage indicators and initiating a rule process update.
  The State of Oklahoma, in the last 7 years, has had more declarations 
of disaster named than any other State in the country. The standard 
used to be if we had a disaster that overwhelmed the ability of the 
State to handle it. We have gotten away from that, and this hasn't been 
updated since 1986. Under the Stafford Act of 1988, the whole purpose 
of our emergency response was for us to step in and provide assistance 
when State and local capabilities were overwhelmed. It is clear in New 
York and New Jersey and in communities that were affected by this 
latest storm that State and local capabilities were overwhelmed. It is 
clearly an appropriate time for the Federal Government, through the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, to step in and provide assistance.
  Unfortunately, FEMA has been declaring an increasing number of 
disasters over the past two decades, including for many storms and many 
events where State and local capacities weren't overwhelmed. Let me 
make that statement again.
  Many of the disasters that have been declared were declared when 
State and local capabilities were not overwhelmed at all. So here we 
are, sitting with this tremendous debt, sitting with

[[Page 17871]]

tremendous deficits, and we are now applying a lower standard than what 
we should, in my mind. It is not just my opinion; the GAO has actually 
so decided. We have a GAO report that says this ought to be modified.
  If we go back in history and look at the Reagan administration, on 
average they declared 28 events each year in the 1980s. Under the 
current administration, we are averaging 140 disaster declarations a 
year. My State, as I said, has had the most FEMA disaster 
declarations--25 in total.
  So what I am offering isn't necessarily going to be beneficial for my 
State, but it makes great common sense for our country because if, in 
fact, they update the per capita effect, some of those declared 
disasters in Oklahoma probably would not now be declared disasters.
  Let me give an example. In 2011, we felt a little tremble in 
Washington from an earthquake. A disaster declaration was declared for 
Virginia after the earthquake that was felt in the Capitol. But this 
wasn't a disaster that overwhelmed local capabilities. It didn't 
overwhelm the capabilities of the regional capital area, and it didn't 
overwhelm the capabilities of Virginia. Yet we transferred what were 
truly responsibilities of the State and local communities to the 
Federal Government.
  So this per capita damage indicator ends up becoming very problematic 
for two reasons: First, it was established in 1986 and FEMA has failed 
to update it; and, second, simply using a per capita damage indicator 
is an unfair way to assess whether a disaster has occurred.
  Let me explain why. Suppose you have a small populated State versus a 
large populated State where you have a large concentration of people in 
an area. You would not ever attain it if you have a large population, 
whereas if you have a small population, you will, with the exact same 
event. So my question is, Should Oklahoma benefit on a per capita basis 
from the same event happening in Oklahoma as happens in Los Angeles, 
where we get declared an emergency and Los Angeles doesn't? That is 
what has happened, since we have not updated this per capita damage 
indicator. It is unfair for the larger, more populous States that we do 
it this way.
  So all we are saying is we should take the GAO report and follow some 
of the recommendations. And what are those recommendations? FEMA should 
review the per capita damage indicator and initiate a rulemaking to 
modernize it. It would require the FEMA Administrator to update the per 
capita damage indicator for all the years since 1996 by no later than 
January 1, 2016. So we are going to give them over 3 years to update 
it.
  Second, the amendment requires the FEMA Administrator to report to 
Congress on better and fairer ways to assess States' preparedness and 
capabilities to respond to a disaster.
  Finally, I would say this is a reasonable approach based on what 
GAO's analysis and recommendations were, which is to encourage FEMA to 
update its process for how it declares disasters so that we can 
preserve and focus more aid for disasters such as Sandy, which is in 
front of us right now.
  It is my belief that although this may divide some in this Chamber, 
this is a smart thing for us to do for the country. It is a fair thing 
for us to do for every State--to treat them all the same instead of 
advantaging the smaller States, such as my State, and giving a 
disadvantage to the larger States.
  I would be happy to work with the chairman to modify this in a way 
that would meet with his approval, but it is something that is sorely 
lacking. It is something that is causing us to intercede at times we 
shouldn't be and causing us to not intercede at times we should.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senators 
from Alaska, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts be 
permitted to proceed in a colloquy for a period of about 15 minutes, 
with the understanding that at the end of it we will enter into a 
quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Fisheries

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I begin by saying very quickly there is an 
amendment that has been brought forward to try to strike from an 
emergency assistance bill critical aid, aid that is, frankly, less than 
it ought to be in order to deal with the crisis of the fisheries not of 
one State but of the entire New England region and of other regions of 
the country--the Pacific, also, and other parts of the country that 
have been hit.
  The fact is that in Massachusetts we have 77,000 jobs, a billion-
dollar industry that is a part of our culture and a part of our 
history. Fishing is vital to our State. We have local fishermen, we 
have commercial fishermen, we have a sports fishing industry, and it is 
a vital part of the commerce of our State and of the entire history of 
our Nation.
  We have been hit in the last years by record levels of reduction in 
our fish stocks, and we have also been hit by Federal regulations that 
are trying desperately to hold on to those fish stocks for the long 
term and for the future, which have, regrettably, reduced our fishing 
effort in certain fisheries by 50 to 80 percent.
  We have fishermen who have their boats--just like a home--mortgaged. 
Their homes, their families are entirely dependent on their ability to 
bring in revenue, but because of the regulations they are prevented 
from going out and doing that because of the reduction in the stock 
which is a God-given effect of nature--just like a drought in the 
Western part of our country, just like a flood which we respond to, 
just like a fire, just like a storm.
  Our fishermen are the farmers of the ocean, and they provide an 
unbelievable amount of food to the people of our country. We want to 
preserve that. If they are not going to fish for a few years, we want 
to know they can come back and fish sometime in the future, and that is 
what they want to do.
  Just as we have tide people over in the past in our country--just as 
in Katrina we went and helped people and small businesses that had been 
wiped out temporarily to be able to come back--our fishing people 
deserve emergency assistance to tide them over and help them through 
this most critical time.
  I would turn to the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from 
Alaska and I ask the Senator from New Hampshire what this means to the 
State of New Hampshire, if she might share with us.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. My friend from Massachusetts understands the challenges 
we have in New Hampshire, as does Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island 
because, in fact, fishing is one of the oldest industries we have in 
New England. In New Hampshire, it dates back over 400 years. Because we 
have a much smaller coastline than Massachusetts and Rhode Island, we 
have a smaller group of people who earn their living through fishing. 
They have smaller boats, and therefore they are more affected by some 
of the fishing regulations and some of the adverse weather conditions 
that have affected fishing.
  About 90 percent of the fishing New Hampshire's fishermen do is for 
cod, and cod is the species that has been most affected by declining 
fish stocks. It is a huge issue for our small remaining fishing 
industry. The fact that there is funding to help them in this bill is 
absolutely critical because without this funding we are going to lose 
that industry in New Hampshire. We have 5,000 jobs affected here, $106 
million in income to the State of New Hampshire.
  I think it is important to point out that this is a bipartisan 
effort. Last

[[Page 17872]]

week we had a letter with 13 of our colleagues, including Senators 
Wicker, Murkowski, Collins, Snowe, and Brown, urging the committee to 
include this funding in the bill. It is there now. I certainly hope we 
are going to see bipartisan support for keeping this funding in the 
bill.
  Let me just turn----
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before my colleague does, if I could ask 
the Senator from New Hampshire--I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Maryland be able to join us in this colloquy and extend it 
for about 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I know the Senator from New Hampshire wanted to turn to 
the Senator from Alaska?
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. We are from New England. Senator Mikulski is further 
south on the east coast. But this is a bicoastal problem because, as I 
know Senator Begich will tell us, it is a huge issue for people in 
Alaska and for those on the west coast. They have the same problem.
  Mr. BEGICH. I will tell you, in Alaska it is even magnified in a lot 
of ways. If you think of this country, three-quarters of the coastline 
is Alaska. Fishermen have been fishing there commercially not just for 
a few hundred years but for 10,000 years of survival on our oceans.
  When you think of the value in 76,000 jobs in Alaska directly and 
indirectly connected to the fishing industry, it is over $5 billion. It 
doesn't matter in a commercial fishery--if you are in McDonald's having 
a fish sandwich, the odds are that it comes from our fisheries. If you 
sit in the fanciest restaurants anywhere in the world, the odds are 
that some of our fish is there.
  As Senator Shaheen said, this is a bipartisan issue. The disasters 
that are declared for fisheries in this bill have been declared 
disasters. It is not some pie in the sky, some pork, or we sit around 
and say: Let's get some money for every State. These are actually 
declared disasters by the States and our Federal Government that need 
to be funded.
  In our situation, it is even more dire--not just the economic impact 
I just laid out, but an elder told me one time that in urban cities, 
you walk out the door and you go down the street to Safeway for your 
food. In rural Alaska, you open your door, and what is in front of you? 
The nature they see is the grocery store.
  So when they have--in our case, the YK Delta, the Yukon-Kuskokwim 
Delta in the western part of Alaska, had a devastating king salmon 
fishery loss in terms of the quantity of the fish. So when that fish is 
not able to be harvested, to be put into the storehouses for the 
winter, then the limited cash that they have, in an area where fuel 
cost to heat their home is $8, $9, $12 a gallon, now has to go to not 
only heating that they have already set that cash aside for, now they 
have to get food shipped in. So their limited cash is now split between 
heating their home and putting food on the table.
  Let me tell you, in Fairbanks, AK, which is urban, outside it was 40 
below yesterday. So heating your home is not like just turning on your 
heater when you come home from work. It is a whole different ball game.
  But most importantly, they live off the land. It is not some hobby 
they do on the weekend. It is not a sports event. They harvest the 
food. The Senator from Massachusetts said it best--we harvest the 
ocean. We are no different from any farmer in the Midwest or anywhere 
else. So when the YK Delta loses its king salmon, a critical piece of 
their food supply, it is real. It is not about: We will go fishing next 
year. This is about: Do we have enough food on the table?
  When I hear people on the other side and others who say this is a 
bunch of pork and a bunch of this and that, they need to come to 
Alaska. I would enjoy them coming right now in the winter at 40 below 
and seeing what people have to do.
  To me, this is such a small amount to make such an impact not only to 
us but to all the coastal States that are suffering with this situation 
in our fishing industry.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Maryland, if I can--
I know the Senator from Rhode Island wants to join in here, but the 
Senator from Alaska made a really important point that I think the 
Senator from Maryland can speak to very specifically; that is, this is 
not some amount of money that got pulled out of the sky and was put in 
in the dead of night behind a closed door as some kind of backdoor 
deal. This has been thoroughly vetted through the Commerce Department, 
through the fisheries, through the committees, through all of the 
regulators, through the White House. The White House has signed off on 
this. This is a designated emergency. It has gone through the requests 
of the Governors. The Governors have had to submit their data. It has 
all been through the process.
  I would ask the Senator from Maryland because she is responsible on 
the Appropriations Committee for making these judgments--there is not a 
Senator here who would not agree that she does that with rigor and with 
standards--I ask her what the meaning is, No. 1, to the State of 
Maryland, which has a fishing industry, and, No. 2, to the legitimate 
process of the Senate?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senators from New England, and I am happy 
to answer the question and join here with my fellow coastal Senators.
  First, I would like to respond in my official responsibility in the 
Senate, which is to chair the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
Science. It is in that subcommittee that the NOAA--the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Agency--is funded. It is there that the fisheries money 
is spent. Any fishery disaster, in order to qualify for Federal 
assistance, must be certified by the Secretary of Commerce. Every 
single fisheries disaster in this bill has been certified by the 
Secretary of Commerce to meet compelling human need, economic 
necessity, and be within the criteria established by law.
  The Senator from Oklahoma, well-intentioned, is asking us to violate 
the law. He wants to make fisheries disasters under the Stafford Act. 
The Stafford Act, named after the Senator from New Hampshire--a 
wonderful Republican--was for FEMA. If you think you have a FEMA 
disaster, you go to the Governor. There has to be data collected. It 
has to go to the President. If you think you have a fishery disaster--
which we coastal Senators experience these days all too often--it has 
to go through the Secretary of Commerce.
  I assure those of you on the floor, all those Senators, all taxpayers 
listening, that every one of these fisheries disasters has been 
certified, has been vetted to really say that in each and every State 
where we respond, it meets this criterion.
  As to the money in the bill, in a $60 billion bill, this is $150 
million. Listen to the jobs, listen to the economy, listen to people 
who go out in really cold weather and put their hands in that icy 
water, and they all risk their lives.
  Everybody wants to go see the movie ``Triple Storm.'' We can't have a 
triple storm here in the Senate, which is this amendment, rejection of 
the urgent supplemental, and the inertia of the Senate.
  I say to my colleagues, your words are well-spoken in defense of your 
State, but you are also exactly following the law.
  I urge the Senator from Oklahoma to withdraw his amendment because it 
would make it out of compliance.
  I say to each and every one of you as a fellow coastal Senator, I 
know our fishing industries--you call them fishermen, we call them 
watermen--whether it is oysters, crab, or rockfish, it is part of our 
economy and it is part of our identity. They asked for help.
  I will oppose the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I actually 
would ask him to withdraw it because it is not a matter of debating 
policy, how to be a smarter and more frugal government, it is actually 
in violation of the current law.
  I thank Senators for standing up for their own communities, and I 
hope this clarifies this bizarre situation.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will the Senator from Maryland yield for a minute?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page 17873]]


  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Isn't it true that since 1994, Federal fishery failures 
have been declared on 29 different occasions and that nearly $827 
million in Federal funding has been appropriated for fishery disaster 
relief?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes, the Senator is exactly right. And it happened 
under both Democratic and Republican Senates. So this has been declared 
under President Bill Clinton, and we worked with his Secretaries of 
Commerce. This was done under George Bush, and Secretary Gutierrez, 
himself from a coastal State of Florida--we worked very well together 
because the appropriators and the Governors and the economy people have 
to work together with Senators.
  The answer is yes. Again, you cannot get fisheries disaster 
assistance unless it has been certified by the Secretary of Commerce in 
compliance with the criteria in current law.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, could I just take 30 seconds, if I may?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Sure.
  Mr. KERRY. I want to make it clear to my colleagues as we engage in 
this colloquy--I asked at the beginning of it if one of my staff folks 
would go check out some figures for me, and I just got them. I hope the 
Senator from Oklahoma is listening to this because from just 2004 to 
2011--7 years--the Federal Emergency Management Agency region 6, which 
includes Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and New Mexico--that is 
5 States--received 68 disaster declarations and almost $40 billion in 
disaster assistance. For five States, $40 billion. We have more than 
five States--many more here--asking for $150 million, as the Senator 
from Maryland has pointed out.
  The distinction is so clear. I just say point-blank that this 
legislation is not going to pass without the inclusion of this fishery 
money--point-blank and period. I think the Senator from Rhode Island 
would agree with me.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would be delighted to agree with the Senator from 
Massachusetts. On Rhode Island's behalf, our fisheries disaster, as the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland said, was declared by the Secretary 
of Commerce. This is not a maybe. This is not trying to sneak something 
in. This is a declaration of the U.S. Government. It was the New 
England multispecies groundfish fishery disaster that affected the 
State of Massachusetts. There was great leadership from Senator Kerry 
on all of this, as it affected the State of New Hampshire, and great 
leadership from Senator Shaheen on all of this.
  Governors of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New 
York, and Connecticut all signed the request for that disaster 
declaration.
  In Rhode Island's letter our congressional delegation--myself and my 
senior Senator, Mr. Reed, Congressman Cicilline, and Congressman 
Langevin--wrote:

       In addition to the direct impact on groundfish catch 
     limits, there will likely be indirect impacts on other 
     fisheries that these same permit holders, and many other 
     Rhode Island fisherman, also rely on.

  To the point Senator Begich of Alaska made, economic disaster in the 
fishing industry cascades through the rest of our economy.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. It is not just the fishermen coming home with empty 
nets because the cod moved offshore, it is the fuel suppliers to their 
boats, the engine repair shops that take care of the mechanics, the net 
repair and construction groups. So a whole economy stands on this. It 
is really inconceivable that a Senator from a State that has, as one of 
a group of five, soaked up $40 billion of disaster assistance would now 
begrudge us $150 million after this disaster was declared.
  This is bipartisan. Let me ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record the letter Senator Shaheen mentioned earlier as an exhibit 
for the end of the colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. It is signed by 35 Republicans and 9 Democrats. It 
could not be more bipartisan. We are trying to deal with a real problem 
here, and it is a recurring problem.
  Our historic New England ground fiduciary is facing significant cuts 
in our catch limits because our populations are not rebounding the way 
that scientists anticipated they would. Something out there is causing 
this failure to rebound and unprecedented environmental changes very 
related to the environmental changes that whip up giant storms like 
Sandy are at the heart of this.
  One last quote, and then I will yield back to my colleagues who are 
engaged in this colloquy. Where we are is a big body of water called 
the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem which is tracked by NOAA, 
and it extends from the Gulf of Maine all the way down to Cape Hatteras 
on our Atlantic coast.
  Here is what NOAA reports:

       During the first six months of 2012, sea surface 
     temperatures in the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem 
     were the highest ever recorded . . . above-average 
     temperatures were found in all parts of the ecosystem, from 
     the ocean bottom to the sea surface and across the region.

  There is a real physical rationale and reason for the disaster that 
we are seeking a remedy for in our home State industries that are being 
so grievously stricken.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, may I draw the distinction between a 
fishery disaster and an earmark? Because there is an undercurrent here 
from the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, who has said on many 
occasions that he has been the defendant of the taxpayer. Well, so am 
I. The difference between an earmark is a congressionally designated 
project that meets the criteria that Senator deems appropriate to help 
his State. That is not what this is. When he says it has to be 
certified by the Stafford Act, he is implying that these are 
uncertified, unneeded, unwarranted, and are earmarks. Once again I will 
say that these are certified by the Secretary of Commerce. They meet 
the criteria for compelling economic and human need as required by law. 
This is not an earmark, it is certified disaster assistance.
  Let's get rid of this phony-baloney nonsense that somehow or another 
that would undermine this bill of $150 million that could restore 
livelihoods for people who are willing to work out there and risk their 
lives to feed America.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that our time is 
just about up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes under 
the colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I will take 1 minute of it. I thank the Senator from 
Maryland for that important distinction.
  I want to say to the Senator from Oklahoma--and the other Senator 
from Oklahoma--that I think all of us have enormous respect for him and 
for his intelligence and the way in which he seeks to protect taxpayers 
and cut pork and get rid of earmarks. We all respect that. There are 
legitimate moments when it is appropriate to do that.
  I think the Senator may have either not known or not been aware of 
all the details that have been laid out here, and I would plead with 
him to take a look at the legitimacy of the law, the way in which this 
has been set up, and hopefully withdraw his amendment.
  Also, to all of our colleagues, I know we are struggling with the 
fiscal cliff and it is the holiday time. There are a lot of people 
hurting in America. In the wake of what happened in Newtown, CT--a 
moment that sort of stops our country cold--where we all have to stop 
and think about what is and is not important and what our 
responsibilities are, it is hard for me to grapple onto the notion that 
in a moment there could be a change in attitude where people could 
begin to perhaps find a constructive way to work together. There are so 
many people in so many places who are living by the law. They are 
dependent on this profession and want to stand up and return to it 
because it is part of their lifetime and will not get help on a Federal 
basis the way we have helped people throughout our history.

[[Page 17874]]

  I call on our colleagues to think hard about that as we think about 
this amendment.
  I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield for a point of inquiry. It was my 
understanding that under the unanimous consent that I would get the 
floor. I don't mind waiting for the time that they have requested, but 
I want to make sure I do get recognized after the conclusion of this 
for such time as I shall consume under morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, I think the way we operate 
is that we need to have a time agreement, and we also have to have an 
agreement that at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks, we will go 
back into a quorum call.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I certainly agree to that. Keep in mind I have 
already asked for unanimous consent not to proceed for more than 20 
minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Not to exceed for 20 minutes with the understanding that 
the quorum call will go into effect at the end of the remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. We reserve our time, and I yield to the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I will be brief because my friend from 
Massachusetts was eloquent in talking about the livelihood of people in 
our fishing industry who have been affected by the disaster, and as a 
result there have been low species and low catch numbers because of 
regulations in an effort to bring back those fish.
  I hope if we can support these disaster funds that as the Department 
of Commerce is allocating this funding, that they will do it with a 
collaborative process that invites fishermen and fishing businesses to 
have a say in that process. Given that their livelihoods have been 
affected, I think it is important for them to be part of the process of 
how this funding is given out.
  Mr. BEGICH. Let me conclude with my comments to say I agree 
especially with the latter part regarding how to engage people on what 
these resources will be. I want to commend the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Appropriations on the eloquent description of exactly 
how this happened. I like earmarks as well, but this is not an earmark. 
This is a process that has gone through step after step to ensure that 
everyone in my State--Republican Governor and a Republican and 
Democratic delegation--has an important role here.
  This takes nothing away from Superstorm Sandy. We recognize--all of 
us on this floor--how devastating that was, but this was also a 
disaster of a different making. As a matter of fact, at the request of 
Senator Kerry--and as the chair of the Subcommittee on Oceans and 
Fisheries--I listened to the fishermen there about the many species 
that are devastated and the quotas they are facing.
  This is not only critical to be done now, it is also that the amount 
of money is so small and the impact is significant when we think about 
the thousands of jobs that will be affected by this.
  In my State it is truly about food and survival for the Alaskan 
Native community in the winter months with temperatures that are not 
zero or 10 above but 40 below.
  I implore my colleagues on the other side to support this bipartisan 
effort and reject the amendment by Senator Coburn.
  Again, I thank all of my colleagues for coming down here. This just 
shows one of the roles that we have as a legislative body. When 
disasters are declared, we unify, no matter where we live, to figure 
out how to make sure the people of this country are taken care of.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I will close the colloquy by thanking Senator 
Mikulski for her leadership, support, and her key role on the 
Appropriations Committee. I want to thank Senator Kerry of 
Massachusetts for his leadership on the original disaster declarations 
that brought us to this point. I want to thank Senator Shaheen of New 
Hampshire for pulling this colloquy together. Thank you to Senator 
Begich for his advocacy on that other coast.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, December 11, 2012.
     Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski,
     Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, & 
         Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, 
         and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Hutchison: We 
     are writing in support of including federal fisheries 
     disaster funding in any emergency supplemental appropriations 
     bill developed in response to Superstorm Sandy. Over the past 
     year, extreme weather and other natural events have wreaked 
     havoc on commercial and recreational fishermen in our states, 
     leading the Secretary of Commerce to declare federal 
     fisheries disasters. Despite these declarations and the 
     ongoing hardship, Congress has not yet appropriated funds.
       As you know, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to 
     declare federal fisheries disasters under Section 308(d) of 
     the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and Section 315 of the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 
     These designations allow Congress to appropriate federal 
     relief funds to alleviate the harm caused by natural 
     disasters to fisheries and the fishing industry. The disaster 
     assistance funds can be used to repair or restore fishing 
     equipment and infrastructure, compensate for losses, restore 
     fisheries habitat, support workforce education, provide low-
     interest loans, and conduct monitoring and cooperative 
     research focused on improving stock assessments.
       Currently, federal fisheries disasters have been declared 
     in nine states in response to four different events:
       Superstorm Sandy--On November 16, 2012, a federal fisheries 
     disaster was declared for New Jersey and New York due to the 
     damage caused by Superstorm Sandy. The high winds and storm 
     surge devastated marinas, destroyed fishing vessels, and 
     resulted in severe economic losses for both commercial and 
     recreational fishermen.
       Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery--On September 
     13, 2012, a federal fisheries disaster was declared for Rhode 
     Island, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and 
     Connecticut. The projected reductions in the total allowable 
     catch for certain critical groundfish stocks will have a 
     significant impact on many of the same coastal communities 
     that were hit by Sandy. Despite strict adherence to new and 
     rigorous management practices by fishermen, key fish stocks 
     have not returned. Slow recovery and declining fish stocks 
     will continue to have a negative impact on commercial 
     fishing, harming local communities and economies.
       Alaska Chinook--On September 12, 2012, a federal fisheries 
     disaster was declared for Alaska Chinook salmon fisheries in 
     the Yukon River, Kuskokwim River, and Cook Inlet. Thousands 
     of Alaskans have been impacted including commercial 
     fishermen, sport fishermen, and subsistence-based residents. 
     Beyond direct impacts, indirect impacts have been felt by 
     communities through reduced tax revenue, reduced work for 
     processor employees, and reduced income for fishery dependent 
     businesses.
       Mississippi Oyster and Blue Crab--On September 12, 2012, a 
     federal fisheries disaster was declared for commercial oyster 
     and blue crab fisheries in Mississippi. Historic flooding of 
     the lower Mississippi River required opening of the Bonnet 
     Cane Spillway on May 9, 2011. This action released 
     substantial amounts of freshwater into the Mississippi Sound, 
     impacting the entire ecosystem. Mississippi's oyster and blue 
     crab fisheries were extensively damaged, resulting in severe 
     economic hardship for commercial fishermen still recovering 
     from the devastating impacts of Hurricane Katrina and the BP 
     oil spill.
       Fishing is an integral part of our states' economies and 
     cultures. These disasters have devastated fishing families 
     and coastal communities and there is an urgent need to 
     provide federal assistance. We urge you to move swiftly to 
     appropriate funds for these federal fisheries disaster 
     declarations.
           Sincerely,
         Frank R. Lautenberg,
         Susan M. Collins,
         Robert Menendez,
         Lisa Murkowski,
         Jack Reed,
         Roger F. Wicker,
         Charles E. Schumer,
         John F. Kerry,
         Mark Begich,
         Kirsten E. Gillibrand,
         Scott Brown,
         Jeanne Shaheen,
         Sheldon Whitehouse,
         Olympia J. Snowe.


[[Page 17875]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to expand my remarks from my 
original intent because of what I have been listening to on the floor. 
I really reserved this time to talk about two very significant things 
that happened.
  In fact, 53 years ago in 1959--and I have to ask the question as it 
gets closer and closer to Christmas: Why are we here? There is always a 
lot of theater right before Christmastime. The things we are talking 
about now could well be taken care of afterward. It could be done after 
we have a chance to look and assess the damages of Sandy.
  As far as the fiscal cliff is concerned, this is something that we 
have known about for a long time. Right now it seems that in this 
body--and the other body down the hall in the House--that they don't 
want to do anything until it gets close to Christmas, that somehow 
people are at home watching, and sitting with bated breath and 
wondering what wisdom we are going to extol. I don't know if that is 
true in other States, but I know that it is not true in Oklahoma. I 
told them this was going to happen. I told them before the election in 
October. I introduced a bill, S. 3473. I introduced that bill because I 
knew what was going to happen.
  What we have been talking about here in the last few minutes during 
the colloquy that I came in and caught the last part of is this Sandy 
issue. This is always interesting. When a disaster occurs in America 
and emotions are high, everybody all of a sudden wants to pour money on 
it, and in this case it will be $60.4 billion. How did they come up 
with $60.4 billion? I don't know because I wasn't in on that.
  I come from Oklahoma. We have disasters all the time. We have our 
tornadoes that are very serious, and of course we take care of the 
problems when they come up. We do get some Federal help, but 
nonetheless we analyze what the damages are and what was caused by the 
particular disaster. We don't just use that to open the door and have 
something in there for everybody, and that is what is happening now. 
They are asking for $60 billion, and there is something for everyone in 
it. That is what we are talking about today.
  Again, we should not be talking about it right before Christmas and 
use this as an excuse to take this right up to Christmas. Right now we 
don't have time to get all the way through this and analyze the actual 
losses that were attributed to Sandy. It was a disaster, and I 
understand that. People lost their lives and their property. 
Nonetheless, we don't know, and we are guessing right now.
  Some say: Well, how about $60.4 billion? That sounds good. It could 
be $70 billion, it could be $80 billion, or it could be $30 billion. 
The Heritage Foundation did an analysis of the damages of Sandy. We 
talked about the $60.4 billion, which is the amount directly attributed 
to Sandy. We should get the study before it is criticized. The Heritage 
Foundation did the study, and it is actually $12.8 billion. That 
represents the amount that individuals lost as a direct result of this 
disaster called Sandy that tragically hit our east coast.
  Now what about the other $47.6 billion? As an example, they have $28 
billion in there for future disasters. Oh, wait a minute. We are 
supposed to be addressing a disaster that just occurred. The $28 
billion is for future disasters. Here is a good one. There is 3.5 for 
global warming. They always have to get global warming in there. That 
is kind of interesting because we actually had several debates and 
several pieces of legislation called cap-and-trade. We took it up 
before this body and we defeated it. I am talking about going back 12 
years ago. The last one was the House bill, and that was called Waxman-
Markey. It was defeated because people realized that cap-and-trade 
would be the largest tax increase in the history of America, somewhere 
between $300 and $400 billion a year. That equates to about $3,000 for 
each family in my State of Oklahoma who files a Federal income tax 
return. So people realize that is true. Yet at the same time, the 
Administrator, appointed by President Obama, Lisa Jackson, when asked 
the question, If you were to pass any bill here for cap and trade in 
Oklahoma, would this reduce CO2 worldwide, said: No. That is 
because the problem is not here; the problem is in countries such as 
China, India, Mexico, and other places.
  Nonetheless, how many people in this body even know what this 
President has done through his executive powers? He has spent $68.4 
billion on global warming initiatives in the 4 years he has been 
President and that is without any authority from this body.
  Here is another one: $150 million. I was listening to my good friend 
Senator Begich from Alaska--and I have a great deal of respect for him. 
He and I have worked on legislation together such as the pilots' bill 
of rights legislation. Nonetheless, fisheries in Alaska were 
significant, but they were not on the east coast. This didn't happen--
the last time I looked at a map, it was on the west coast, not the east 
coast, so it should not be in here.
  Then we go on to the fiscal cliff. We are all here talking about this 
fiscal cliff that is here and all of a sudden we have to do something 
about it. How many people realize that we knew this was coming a long 
time ago? I mentioned my bill, which is S. 3473, that showed we don't 
have to raise $1.4 trillion, we can raise $2.7 trillion without any 
cuts to the military, and it is all right there. Look it up: S. 3473. 
Now, months later, right before Christmas, we come here and say, Oh, 
trauma has set in; it is going to be a disaster, so we have to come up 
with $1.4 trillion.
  How many people realize that this President--and this is not the 
Democrats, not the Republicans, not the House, not the Senate--it was 
the President of the United States, in his budget--there were four 
budgets he had in his 4 years. He had over $1 trillion of deficit in 
each budget. If we add up all of his deficits--this is what the 
President gave us now. Again, it was not the Democrats or Republicans, 
House or Senate; this was his budget that he drafted and signed, with 
$5.3 trillion of deficit in it--that is more deficit than all budgets 
of all Presidents combined since George Washington--and nobody cares. 
We say this and people shake their heads and they don't seem to care. 
He said it so it must be all right.
  So now after this President has given us $5.3 trillion of deficit, 
now all of a sudden--he did that in 4 years, but in 10 years we can't 
even come up with $1.4 trillion. It is easy. We could do it. I did it 
in a bill introduced several months ago. We knew it was coming, but 
Christmas is coming too so we are all lined up to grandstand--I don't 
mean grandstand; that sounds demeaning. I don't mean it that way.
  When we think about the money this President has spent--what about 
the $800 billion stimulus that didn't stimulate? How many people in 
America--how many Members of this body--know what that $800 billion was 
spent for? I suggest not very many. I do, because I made a point to 
look. There are things that it did not stimulate. Only 3 percent of it 
went to roads and highways and that type of thing. But, again, he came 
up with in one fell swoop $800 billion, and now we wonder--that was in 
the first couple of months and now in 10 years, how can we come up with 
this much more? So, anyway, I just wanted to say that.
  While we are talking about the budget, I think it is appropriate to 
say something else about it, because it was in the budget that was part 
of disarming America. I can remember going over to Afghanistan after 
the President's first budget because I knew he was cutting the military 
and I knew if I were over there responding with the tanks going back 
and forth that it would get people's attention, and it did. In that 
first budget he did away with the only fifth-generation fighter, the F-
22; he did away with our lift capacity, the C-17; did away with our 
future combat system, did away with the ground-based interceptor in 
Poland; all of these things in one budget. That is what took place.
  Jon Kyl is retiring, and I noticed that when he made his going-away 
speech today he talked about the disasters we are facing right now. We 
are talking here about weather disasters.

[[Page 17876]]

What about nuclear disasters? What about the fact that we had the New 
START Treaty, which I opposed, but nonetheless, that put levels on both 
Russia and ourselves. In terms of our nuclear stockpile, which was 
supposed to go down equally to 1,550 warheads, it is now down, and they 
are talking about doing away with them altogether. It is another 
subject for another time, but I will spend some time talking about it 
later.
  Anyway, as we started, I mentioned two significant things happened in 
1959. One was--and we are all revering now Danny Inouye. Senator Inouye 
is different than most other Senators. I remember when my daughter 
Katie was much younger and she said, My two favorite U.S. Senators--I 
thought I was going to be one of them--my two favorite ones are Senator 
Inouye and Senator Jesse Helms. They are such kind, older guys. She 
wanted to know if they ever got angry at anything. No, they didn't. As 
a conservative Republican I have gone to him many times for favors, 
really, to ask if we could get something done, and he never turned me 
down during that time. I had a long visit yesterday with his son and 
told him what we feel about Danny Inouye and how much we are going to 
miss him. So that happened in 1959. That was when he was first elected 
to the U.S. Senate.
  The other thing that is significant that happened in 1959, 53 years 
ago today, is I was married. So this is my 53rd wedding anniversary, 
and it happened we were married in 1959. In fact, she is watching now. 
She hardly ever does, but I called and said watch because I can't be 
there for our anniversary so I have to do it this way, and so she is. 
Today is only the second time in 53 years that we haven't been together 
on our anniversary.
  But I would ask the question: Who will be there today? That is who 
will be there today, our 20 kids and grandkids. Look at them all. Isn't 
that neat? Yes, they are going to be there, but I am not, but she won't 
be alone. Isn't that significant? All of that happened and it started 
with just us, right there, and there they are. A person might look and 
see that one little girl is a little bit different than the rest of 
them. That is the little girl right here. We call her Zegita Marie. 
There she is. We found her 12 years ago, only 2 days old. She was a 
cute little girl and she was just near death in an orphanage in 
Ethiopia and we went back there and got her nursed back to health. My 
daughter Molly, who had nothing but boys, adopted her.
  I want to say to my wife who is listening right now, even though I 
won't be home, 3 days from now on the 22nd--that is Saturday--I want 
you to watch the ``Mike Huckabee Show'' because she is going to be 
interviewed and talking about adoption.
  Senator Landrieu and I head the adoption caucus in the U.S. Senate. 
There are hundreds of thousands of little kids out there and people who 
want to adopt little kids, and they can't do it because of the 
problems. This little girl wouldn't even be alive today and here she is 
now, 11\1/2\, almost 12 years old, reading at college level and doing 
wonderful things. So, Kay, be sure to tune in to Mike Huckabee and 
watch her being interviewed 3 days from now.
  The last thing I will say is that this is bad enough not to be home 
during our anniversary, but it is also bad as we get closer to 
Christmas. If you can only see the celebration that is going on right 
now, all those kids. They are all there and they are participating.
  I remember what happened in the year 2009. In 2009, we played the 
same game here: You know, we were here doing a little theater, making 
sure everybody knew we were working, and we didn't get out until the 
afternoon, just about noon, on Christmas Eve. I remember that was the 
worst snowstorm in the history of northern Texas and of Oklahoma. Where 
is global warming when you need it? It was terrible. I got to DFW and I 
wanted to go on to Tulsa. I was in a hurry to get there because Kay and 
I belong to a church in Tulsa where we were married, all of our kids 
were married there, and my wife was even baptized there, and every 
Christmas Eve they have the most beautiful setting and three of my 
grandkids were going to be singing in that and I never missed it in 50 
years. We got to Dallas; they weren't going to take off. I pleaded with 
them. They took off, the only plane that took off from DFW, and went to 
Tulsa that day. We went through 6-foot drifts, if my colleagues can 
believe it, to get down there to see my little grandkids singing. Well, 
that is not going to happen this time, because I will be back there.
  I would say this to my wife. We have had kind of a tradition for 53 
years now: I always get Kay roses. She loves roses. So I am not there 
today, but I want to say to Kay that if you will go out in our front 
yard now and look under the giant oak tree that you and I planted over 
50 years ago, your roses are there.
  Finally, I want to say two more things. One is I want to assure Kay 
that I love her more today than I did 50 years ago; and secondly, I am 
not Bing Crosby, but I am going to say--and all the people in Oklahoma 
understand this--there may be 99 Senators here playing their games on 
Christmas, but as Bing said, I'll be home for Christmas and you can be 
sure of that. You can count on it.
  With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, Senator Reed and I want to speak 
briefly, and unless the leader has arrived, we will return the Senate 
to a quorum call at the conclusion of the remarks by Senator Reed and 
myself. And it is gratifying that the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
presiding.
  Yesterday, I requested that the cloakroom hotline Senator Casey's 
Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Support Reauthorization 
Act, S. 958, with an amendment important to Rhode Island and to the 
country regarding growing our mental health care pediatric workforce.
  My amendment would make resources available to increase the number of 
residents trained in child and adolescent psychiatry. Senator Casey's--
the Presiding Officer's--bill and my amendment have the unanimous 
support of my caucus and I believe have very broad support in the 
Republican caucus as well. Unfortunately, there has been an objection 
to my unanimous consent request, so I am very disappointed that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not able to clear this 
particular bill. I am also disappointed that none of the Republicans 
who object to this measure have approached me or my staff with their 
concerns--none of them. If it is just one, then he or she has not. If 
it is more than one, none of them have.
  I was prepared to come to the floor today and make a live unanimous 
consent request to find out exactly where the objections to this 
amendment lie. But, instead, I will urge my Republican colleagues to 
work with me and with Senator Casey of Pennsylvania to reach consensus 
on this important measure.
  The CHGME program should be reauthorized. Since its enactment in 
1999, the program has helped address the need for more pediatric 
specialists. But there is a gap in the field of child and adolescent 
psychiatry.
  The American Psychiatric Association concluded this year that 
``targeted efforts must be made to encourage medical training and 
residency in the subspecialties of child and adolescent psychiatry. . . 
. ''
  I gather my time is very brief, so I am going to yield to Senator 
Reed very shortly, but I do want to thank Senator Casey and Senator 
Isakson for their patience and their hard work.
  The amendment I have proposed and Senator Reed of Rhode Island has 
proposed is an amendment that does not add any additional spending. It 
stays within the existing budgetary limit. It confines the amount 
available for child and adolescent psychiatry to less than

[[Page 17877]]

1 percent of the total. I believe it is a very sensible measure, 
particularly in the wake of the tragedy in Newtown, CT. The idea that 
there is not room for further attention to child mental health and 
psychiatry and adolescent mental health and psychiatry seems to me to 
be an unfortunate outcome.
  Bradley Hospital in Rhode Island would be a beneficiary of this. They 
are a particularly good hospital in a great number of settings.
  As I said, I know time is short, so I will yield the remaining 
moments of our time to Senator Reed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to join Senator Whitehouse in 
commending the Presiding Officer for his underlying legislation, along 
with Senator Isakson, and commend my colleague and friend, Senator 
Whitehouse, for his leadership on this issue, and begin where he left 
off, which is, in the wake of the unfathomable tragedy in Newtown, CT, 
the idea that we do not need more trained child psychiatrists and child 
counselors is difficult to understand. We do need them.
  The legislation the Senator from Pennsylvania has introduced would 
help children's hospitals across the Nation and we are strongly behind 
it. But we also want to make help available to children's psychiatric 
hospitals, such as Bradley Hospital in Rhode Island.
  One of the facts that emerged from the terrible tragedy in Newtown is 
that we have young people who need help, desperately need help, and 
their parents need help--help to recognize problems, help to not only 
diagnose them but treat them, and we do not have a sufficient number of 
trained child psychiatrists in the country to do that.
  This legislation, this amendment, would allow us to do that. It adds 
no cost, as Senator Whitehouse indicated, and I think it should be 
something that we would do almost automatically when it comes to the 
welfare of our children, but particularly in the wake of the terrible 
tragedy in Connecticut.
  So I wanted to be here to lend my support to the underlying efforts 
of the Senator from Pennsylvania and to the specific efforts of my 
colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Dr. 
Gregory Fritz, who is the academic director of the residency program at 
Bradley Hospital, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Parity for Kids' Mental Health

       Despite the passage of the Federal mental-health parity 
     bill, stigma and prejudice are still alive and well when it 
     comes to legislation affecting children's psychiatric 
     hospitals. The latest example of how our government continues 
     to maintain discriminatory funding policies specifically 
     directed against children with mental-health issues involves 
     Federal support for graduate medical education (GME).
       Although this issue is far overshadowed by the federal debt 
     issue, those who care about the mental health of children 
     need to be aware that achieving true parity still entails 
     overcoming significant obstacles. Getting children's 
     psychiatric hospitals recognized as legitimate sites of 
     medical education is one such obstacle on the road to real 
     parity that has both symbolic and pragmatic importance.
       The history of Federal support for training physicians 
     during their hospital residencies goes back to the 
     establishment of Medicare, in 1965. Recognizing that America 
     needs a steady supply of physicians in all the areas of 
     medicine, and that their training carries substantial 
     additional expense for teaching hospitals, Medicare 
     authorization includes a per-resident reimbursement that is 
     provided to hospitals through a complicated formula. One 
     element for determining GME payments is the percentage of a 
     hospital's reimbursement that comes from Medicare. That 
     children's hospitals would thus be excluded from the program 
     (because Medicare pays virtually zero for children's medical 
     care) was unintentional, but it took 34 years for this 
     oversight to be corrected.
       The Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Payment 
     Program (CHGME), in 1999, established a pool to provide 
     residency education support to children's hospitals in a 
     system modeled after the Medicare GME system. The 
     unintentional disincentive to train pediatric generalists and 
     specialists was removed and pediatric training accelerated 
     dramatically. This year, a total of $317.5 million offsets 
     the training expenses of 5,500 residents at 46 children's 
     hospitals, and the CHGME program is widely considered a 
     success.
       Parallel to the initial oversight in the Medicare bill, in 
     the arcane definition of a children's hospital detailed in 
     the CHGME regulations is language making it impossible for 
     children's psychiatric hospitals to qualify. Only the most 
     cynical observer would conclude that this was a deliberate 
     attempt to exclude children's psychiatric hospitals and the 
     child psychiatric and pediatric residents they train, 
     especially since no medical specialty represents a greater 
     shortage area than child and adolescent psychiatry. Yet, 
     steady efforts since 2002 to correct this oversight have thus 
     far been unsuccessful.
       The CHGME reauthorization needed for the program to 
     continue would seem to offer the ideal opportunity to end 
     this de facto discrimination against children with mental-
     health problems. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Representatives 
     David Cicilline and James Langevin, all Rhode Island 
     Democrats, have offered similar versions of a brief amendment 
     to the reauthorization that would correct the language to 
     reflect the original bill's intent.
       If passed, it would admit four or five children's 
     psychiatric hospitals that meet strict criteria into the pool 
     of hospitals eligible for CHGME reimbursement. A larger 
     taxpayer outlay is not requested; rather, the existing money 
     would be spread slightly more thinly (an estimated 30 
     additional residents would be added to the current 5,500). 
     One would think it a small price to pay to correct an 
     injustice, but passage is far from guaranteed.
       As a child psychiatrist working at Bradley Hospital, one of 
     the psychiatric hospitals that would finally be included, I'm 
     far from dispassionate about this issue. I see every day the 
     agony experienced by families with autism, childhood suicide, 
     adolescent substance abuse or pediatric bipolar disorder; 
     it's different, but no less severe, than the pain associated 
     with juvenile diabetes or leukemia. As are all mental-health 
     professionals, I'm troubled by the months-long waiting lists 
     that prevent children's access to child psychiatric services.
       The distinction between psychological and physiological 
     disorders is artificial and antiquated, reflecting outdated 
     fears and prejudices. In short, I see no valid reason to 
     perpetuate the exclusion of children's psychiatric hospitals 
     from the mechanism designed to support physicians' training. 
     Neither do the thousands of members of 39 national 
     organizations who have signed on to a letter urging support 
     of the Whitehouse amendment. Mental-health parity is the law 
     in principle; the CHGME reauthorization should make it be the 
     case in practice.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have a comment on an additional issue but 
would only do so if the Senator from Rhode Island would allow.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, let me yield back to my senior Senator 
to move to his other issue. But let me also say what a pleasure and a 
privilege it has been to work with him in our shared determination to 
see that this amendment is made--this very reasonable amendment that 
will add no additional spending and will expand the reach of adolescent 
and child psychiatry in this country. He has been terrific to work 
with. It is always a pleasure and privilege to have Senator Reed as my 
senior Senator, but this has been a particularly good occasion of 
working together.
  With that, I yield back to my senior Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to touch on a topic that was 
discussed by many of my colleagues, including Senator Whitehouse; and 
that is the fisheries disaster in the Northeast, which was declared by 
the Secretary of Commerce in 2012. There is language and support in the 
supplemental appropriations bill to help our fishing industry in the 
Northeast that has been affected by this disaster in the areas of New 
York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
  These fishermen have been for years under a painful regime of 
restricted fishing so that the stock could be replenished. Despite 
their efforts, some of the fishing stock has not responded, leading to 
a declaration of a fisheries disaster by the Secretary of Commerce.
  The funding that is included in the supplemental applies to New 
England, but it also helps Alaska and Mississippi. I appreciate very 
much the fact that Senator Mikulski is working to include this funding 
in the bill. She is an extraordinary leader in our Senate, an 
extraordinary and compassionate leader when it comes to issues 
affecting the fishing industry, not just in her home area of the 
Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic but as far away as Alaska and Rhode 
Island and Maine. I would hope we could move to help

[[Page 17878]]

these fishermen get on with their lives with this assistance.
  With that, 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Remembering Danny K. Inouye

  Mr. LEVIN. When 7-year-old Danny Inouye saw the Japanese planes over 
his Hawaii home on December 7, 1941, his first impulse was to help. So 
he ran to help. He had emergency medical training. He used that 
training to help bind the wounds of the Americans injured in the attack 
on Pearl Harbor.
  His second impulse, just as strong, was to defend our country. But 
the America of 1941 did not want his service. In fact, it considered 
Danny and his fellow Japanese Americans suspect and called them enemy 
aliens and confined more than 100,000 of them to internment camps. When 
Danny Inouye tried to enlist to defend his country, his country told 
him: You are not welcome.
  That Danny Inouye did not allow anger and resentment to overcome his 
love of country says something remarkable about him and about our 
country. When in 1943 President Roosevelt allowed Japanese Americans to 
enlist in the fight against Nazi Germany, Inouye and thousands of young 
men answered the call. He burned with desire to defend the Nation that 
had told him and people of his background: You may not serve; a Nation 
that still held thousands of Japanese Americans behind barbed-wire 
fences.
  When he left Hawaii for the Army, his father told him: This country 
has been good to us. Whatever you do, do not dishonor this country. 
Danny, on more than one occasion, told stories about his Army training 
in Mississippi, about the racial segregation he saw. He told the story 
of how after he returned from World War II he stopped in California on 
the way home to Hawaii to stop to get a haircut and was told: We don't 
serve Japs here.
  He stood there in full dress uniform, his chest covered in medals, a 
hook in place of the arm blown apart by a German rifle grenade. Even 
then he had to confront hatred. There is so much that is remarkable 
about the life of Dan Inouye, the story of his service on the 
battlefields of Italy is indeed remarkable, physical courage he 
displayed in winning the Medal of Honor is alone enough to earn the 
title ``hero.''
  But rising above his physical courage and the guts he showed is the 
moral courage it took for Dan Inouye and his fellow Japanese Americans 
to even set foot on that battlefield. What is it that spurs some of our 
countrymen to offer their lives in defense of a country that shuns 
them? Where does that love of country come from? How can we impart some 
of it to those who too often take this country for granted?
  It would be a wonderful tribute to Dan Inouye to seek out ways to 
encourage such service by future generations. Dan Inouye's work did not 
end when he took off his soldier's uniform. In many ways, it was just 
beginning. Forced by the loss of his arm to give up dreams of a medical 
career, he entered politics. His was one of the most remarkable careers 
in public service our country has ever seen. We will miss Dan Inouye so 
much in the Senate, his leadership, his legislative talent, yes, but 
also his friendship, his humor, his humility, his steadfast belief in 
the American people. He was the last remaining Senator who voted for 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In that vote and so many others, he 
served the Nation and the Senate with distinction that few have ever 
matched.
  In Michigan we proudly claim an early connection to this noble man. 
Much of his recovery from the wounds he suffered in Italy took place at 
a veteran's hospital in Battle Creek, MI. There he met two other young 
men, a soldier from Kansas named Bob Dole and one from Michigan named 
Phil Hart. They formed a lifelong bond, one that endured all the way to 
the Senate.
  In 2003, when we dedicated that former hospital in Battle Creek, now 
a Federal office facility, as the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center, 
Senator Inouye told the audience: All of us have chapters in our lives, 
milestones. My most important chapter, he said, was a Battle Creek 
chapter. This is where I learned what democracy was all about, where I 
learned what America was all about.
  To have imparted any lessons on America to Dan Inouye would be a 
remarkable honor. What we may have taught him pales in comparison to 
what he taught us.
  A few years ago, in a speech honoring his fellow Japanese-American 
veterans, Danny told his audience that our greatness as a Nation lies 
in part in our willingness to recognize the flaws in our past, 
including our treatment of Japanese Americans and our determination in 
whatever limited way we could to make amends. Dan Inouye served his 
country because of his dream of what we could be: a Nation unbound by 
our all too human failings.
  He believed to his core that we are able to shed old prejudices. He 
believed that our Nation, despite its flaws, shines with such bright 
promise that we could inspire remarkable service and sacrifice, even in 
those who suffer from our shortcomings, a Nation so great that those we 
treat with disdain or even hatred can respond with love that knows no 
limit. This love was as powerful as the love that Dan Inouye showed for 
all Americans and for the very idea of America.
  I am so grateful for the lessons that Danny taught me, so grateful 
for his friendship. Barb and I send our deepest condolences to Irene 
and all of Danny's family, to the people of Hawaii, and to all of those 
touched by this remarkable man.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President. Our former colleague, now Secretary of the 
Interior Ken Salazar has written a letter in memory of our departed 
colleague Dan Inouye. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                    Washington, December 18, 2012.
     Majority Leader Harry Reid,
     Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader: Senator Danny Inouye was and will 
     continue to be one of my lifetime heroes. In December 2008, 
     when the President, you and I were in discussions about my 
     potential service as United States Secretary of the Interior, 
     Senator Inouye said the following to me:
       ``The Secretary of the Interior is the most important 
     position in the Cabinet because you are the Custodian of 
     America's Natural Resources and America's Heritage.''
       Senator Inouye's description of the Department was a major 
     factor in my decision to accept the President's offer to 
     serve as Secretary of the Interior. I have adopted his 
     description of the job of Secretary as my motto and as the 
     best description of the Department of the Interior.
       Like you, I will forever miss Senator Inouye. He has served 
     and continues to serve as a mentor and inspiration to me in 
     all of my days in public service. I know his life and his 
     teachings will continue to live through each of us as he 
     continues to inspire our journey forward.
           Respectfully,

                                                  Ken Salazar,

                                   U.S. Secretary of the Interior,
                                              former U.S. Senator.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr President, I have not yet filed, but I intend to 
shortly, an alternative amendment to the emergency supplemental which 
is on the Senate floor and in the process of being debated. I would 
like to explain what it is that I am going to file and what it does and 
explain the rationale behind it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator.

[[Page 17879]]


  Mr. LEAHY. It is my understanding that the Senator is not going to 
seek action on it now, it is simply to file it?
  Mr. COATS. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my distinguished colleague.
  We have shared this colloquy on two different occasions. I thank the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. The Senator from Vermont is correct. I don't intend to 
take any action on this now. I know there are events planned tonight. 
We are in the middle of mourning for our lost colleague as well. But I 
simply wanted to explain for the record what it is that we are 
attempting to do.
  I think all of us are sensitive to the pain and the damage incurred 
by those in the Northeast due to the catastrophic, clearly catastrophic 
record proportion hurricane that hit that sector of our country just 
weeks ago. Clearly, that is something that falls in the category of an 
emergency. It goes beyond the ability of State and local jurisdictions 
to address with their own resources. They will participate in the 
recovery, and they have. It is remarkable, in this country virtually no 
State, no Senator, can stand and simply say, well, we haven't been 
touched and not understand the need for the response that comes from 
disasters, whether they be tornadoes like occurred in my State of 
Indiana just this past spring--we needed emergency help and response 
and received that--or whether it is flooding that has occurred 
throughout the Midwest and in other parts of the country that has 
caused a tremendous amount of damage.
  There have been terrorist attacks such as 9/11, Oklahoma City. In 
this case, hurricanes, and we have had a number of those. Katrina 
stands in our mind, Irene, and on and on it goes with Sandy being the 
latest. This one was truly of a monumental proportion and created a lot 
of damage.
  Therefore, a Federal response is needed and necessary if we are going 
to begin to have an adequate recovery, get people back to work and back 
in their homes, businesses up and growing again and working.
  The bill that is currently on the Senate floor for us attempts to do 
that. Some of us were somewhat staggered by the initial number, $60.4 
billion. That may not be enough; that may be too much. But in the short 
amount of time that we have had to try to put all the estimates 
together in terms of what might be needed, what we as Senate 
Appropriations Republicans have attempted to do is to separate that 
from what we believe is immediately needed--immediate being from the 
time of the storm through March 27--to attend to those initial 
responses that need to take place. There were a whole raft of things 
that run the gamut from debris cleanup to repairing damaged and flooded 
facilities, destroyed homes, public facilities, and so forth. But we 
need to try to go through and separate the immediate and make sure that 
measure of support as quickly and as expeditiously as possible is 
brought to the area to address the problem and distinguish them from 
those longer term projects and interests that have been proposed.
  When our committee met, it was, I think, up to 10 Senators from the 
affected States testifying. We heard a number of suggestions about the 
number of things that ought to be incorporated into this legislation. 
Mitigation was one major issue. Mitigation simply is preparing for the 
next storm so we can mitigate or lessen the damage that occurred from 
the storm that we just incurred. But mitigation is a long-term project. 
It is not something that can be immediately entered into.
  Interestingly enough, on the proposals that were presented before the 
committee, many were contradictory. Some thought that burying wires 
underground would prevent, obviously, tree limbs from taking them down 
and losing power on above-ground wiring. In a city like Manhattan, 
Boston, or a major metropolitan area or in any city, it is an 
enormously expensive project.
  While that seemed initially to meet some success, then one of the 
experts who was testifying said, well, wait a minute. The flooding that 
occurs with this would go in and would corrode the piping and corrode a 
lot of the systems and the switches, and that might not be the best 
thing to do. I don't know whether that is better to do or not better to 
do, but it is certainly something that needs to be examined carefully 
and vetted before we commit to that type of project.
  Others said we should rebuild the sand dunes and sand islands 
offshore to provide barriers. There was the piece, I think it was in 
the New York Times, that basically said this has shown some real 
promise in terms of protecting areas by having sand barriers off coast.
  Other experts came in and said, well, yes, sometimes that works and 
sometimes it doesn't work, and you need to be careful how and where you 
build these. It is not the panacea, it is not the be-all and end-all of 
how you prevent this type of damage, but it clearly is something that 
we ought to look at, clearly something we ought to examine. But making 
a decision now in the weeks' aftermath of the storm, just days from 
adjournment, and saying this is why we need $13 billion toward 
mitigation projects--without vetting those projects, without examining 
those, having experts look at it and tell us what they think would 
work, how much it would cost, setting the priorities of what ought to 
be first, what ought to be done and what, perhaps, might not work and 
be postponed--all of that requires a process.
  If we are going to be responsible with the taxpayers' dollars at a 
time of this fiscal crisis, and particularly now, it seems to me the 
most logical and responsible way to move forward is to identify the 
immediate needs and provide the immediate funding to address those 
needs.
  Secondly, on those needs that are longer term, go through the 
process. That is why we have committees. That is why we have procedures 
in place, to identify how best to move forward and spend the taxpayer 
dollars in a useful way that doesn't turn out to be a waste of money 
and deny us the opportunities to do the mitigation or other repairs 
that may be needed.
  The additional funding, of course, this is a short-term proposal. It 
goes through March 27. It addresses those needs that fall into that 
category that meet the criteria of what we set out when we told our 
staff on the Appropriations Committee to go through and scrub the bill 
that was put before us and separate out that which was needed now from 
that which could be done later. That criteria excluded funding for 
projects not related to Sandy.
  There is the long list of requests out there for previous disasters. 
Mitigation was for future disasters that may or may not come. On 
mitigation, we said let's set that aside for later deliberation.
  On nonrelated issues, such as cleaning up the tsunami debris on the 
west coast, those expenditures put in this $60.4 billion proposal by 
the administration and brought to this Senate floor, if it is not 
related directly to this storm, let's set those aside for the 
procedures that were being dealt with before Sandy occurred or put 
those procedures in place to deal with it afterward. So unrelated items 
and unsubstantiated items, those are where all the facts weren't in, 
where these were estimates that had not been certified and not 
substantiated in a way that I think puts us in a position to make the 
correct decisions in terms of going forward.
  So under that criteria, we came up with a proposal that is a little 
bit of a work in progress, but totals around $24 billion.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator, but I would like to finish my 
remarks, if I could. I know we all have time commitments.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am only going to make a short unanimous consent request, 
if I could.
  Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator.


                            Order for Recess

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the 
completion of the distinguished Senator's remarks the Senate stand in 
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

[[Page 17880]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the concept behind this, of course, is to 
be as careful as we can with the taxpayers' money and make sure that 
each dollar spent is spent on something that has been thoroughly 
examined, looked at, vetted, scrubbed, and determined to be necessary 
going forward. We have to determine the share, the cost share for the 
State and local communities; what that percentage ought to be that 
comes from the State and the local communities as opposed to the 
Federal Government.
  We have to determine how to best go forward with the best project 
that can, hopefully, prevent future damage should a second storm or 
subsequent storm occur. We have to look at a whole number of factors 
and make judgments. That is what we are elected to do.
  When the taxpayers send their money into the Federal Government, they 
don't want us to just throw up a number and throw some wish list out 
and throw out money at unsubstantiated and unscrubbed projects that are 
proposed. So I am not suggesting that everything in the proposal, the 
$60.4 billion, is not necessary. I am simply saying give us some time, 
at least these 3 months through March 27, to have our committees and 
have the experts look at these proposals and make sure it is 
substantiated.
  So we remove the unsubstantiated, the mitigated, the non-Sandy 
related. We have removed all that from this program, and that is how we 
arrived at this number.
  Now, I could go through a number of examples--I don't think I need to 
do that at this particular point in time. When we look at the various 
categories this falls into, sometimes we matched exactly what it was in 
the administration's bill, saying this is an accurate number.
  Flood insurance, for instance, we require people living in flood 
zones to buy flood insurance. They buy the flood insurance, and they 
are looking for their check. If the estimate has been made, and it has 
been made actuarially and through the procedures of FEMA and all those 
evaluating the cost, and the decision is made and the number is 
determined and certified, then a check is written and those people can 
move on to their lives. That is an immediate need.
  We can't tell people to pay their premiums and we will somehow find a 
way to get their checks to them a year from now. This is an immediate 
need. In that regard, we have matched their request made by the Flood 
Insurance Program to provide the borrowing authority so that they can 
cut those checks. Whether it is Christmas or the middle of the year, 
those people need to get their lives back together and we want to get 
that money to them.
  So as you go through the list here and the categories, as you compare 
what we have provided and what was provided in the larger bill, you 
find congruence in a number of areas, but a number of other areas, 
which I have generalized in terms of mitigation, in terms of community 
development block grants, all these take time to come to fruition, to 
be put together. The plans need to be vetted and approved. They are not 
necessary to provide the necessary immediate need and aid that is for 
the people who are suffering from the consequences of this storm. If we 
go through all that and scrub it, we arrive at a considerably lower 
number.
  But I want it said that this number, while higher than some would 
like and lower than others would like, is a carefully thought-through, 
reasonable number to take care of needs for now, through this Christmas 
season and all the way to March 27. This Congress will then revisit the 
matter and see what else is needed. But during that time, we will be 
able to also carefully work through the estimates, substantiate those 
estimates, certify that. Then, obviously, I think those proposing will 
have a much better foundation to stand on in terms of what they are 
requesting, and those of us who are trying to be very careful with the 
taxpayers' dollars will be able to assert or state why we think this 
may not be necessary at this time or perhaps doesn't fall in the 
category of being related to Sandy.
  We all know when some emergency supplemental comes to the Halls of 
Congress, a lot of people reach in their pocket, pull out their wish 
list, waiting for the next train that has to be something we will move 
through quickly, has to be something signed by the President because it 
is designated as an emergency. They throw on their wish list of 
unresolved, unfunded projects that perhaps are legitimate, perhaps 
maybe just earmarks or something that needs a train to hook onto in 
order to get passed. That is what we want to try to avoid.
  As I said, I will be filing this amendment, which hopefully will be 
seen as an alternative to give Members a choice in terms of how best to 
move forward in dealing with this legitimate supplemental emergency 
provision.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________