Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2011

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

I yield to the Senator.

That is correct.

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.

I yield to the Senator, but I would like to finish my remarks, if I could. I know we all have time commitments.

I yield to the Senator.

Order for Recess

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.

Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor today to introduce, on behalf of 34 Senators, the Job Protection Act.

The Job Protection Act is occasioned by a decision by the acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board that filed a complaint to stop the Boeing Company from building airplanes at a nonunion plant in South Carolina, suggesting that a unionized American company cannot expand its operations in 1 of 22 States with a right-to- work law.

The right-to-work law protects workers' rights to join or not join a union. For example, in Tennessee we are a right-to-work State. In the case of a Saturn employee, where United Auto Workers is the bargaining agent, a worker doesn't have to join the union or pay dues, but he has to accept the UAW as his bargaining agent.

At the Nissan plant a few miles away from the General Motors plant, workers have three times elected not to have a union as their bargaining agent. That is what a right-to-work State is. There are 22 of them. The State of New Hampshire is in the process of deciding whether to become the 23rd. Their legislature is of one view, and their Governor is of the other view.

The Job Protection Act, which I introduce today on behalf of 34 Senators, would preserve the Federal law's current protection of State right-to-work laws in the National Labor Relations Act and provide necessary clarity to prevent the NLRB from moving forward in their case against Boeing or attempting a similar strategy against other companies.

Specifically, the Job Protection Act would, first, explicitly clarify that the board cannot order an employer to relocate jobs from one location to another; two, it guarantees an employer the right to decide where to do business within the United States; and, three, it protects an employer's free speech regarding the costs associated with having a unionized workforce without fear of such communication being used as evidence in an anti-union discrimination suit.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of the 34 Senators who are original cosponsors of the Job Protection Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks two articles by the Wall Street Journal, the first written by me on April 29 and the second written by the president of the Boeing Company, Jim McNerney, who is also chairman of President Obama's Export Council.

Mr. President, now to make a few remarks about the actions that have caused this.

I just left a hearing in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on the middle class. One of the witnesses was the general counsel of the Boeing Company. As might be expected, given the notoriety of this case and the breathtaking scope of it, he got a lot of questions.

Let me first say why there is such a breathtaking scope here. Up until the filing of the complaint, one would assume that a manufacturing company, such as Boeing or a smaller company that wanted to open a new plant to create new jobs could make its own decision about where to do that. Then in doing so, it could take into account such factors as the cost of labor. It could take into account such factors as the labor relations within a State, as well as the geographical location of the State and many other factors.

The reason the decision by the acting general counsel has attracted so much attention is it basically says--or at least it suggests--to any company manufacturing a product in a State which is not a right-to-work State, such as Washington, that you better think twice before you open a new production line in one of the right-to-work States.

Let me talk for a moment about why that has an impact on the middle class in America. Thirty years ago I was Governor of Tennessee. We were the third poorest State. My goal was to raise family incomes and to create an environment in which they could be raised. I was a young Governor, but I knew enough to know the government did not raise the incomes but it might create a good environment for that to happen.

I went to my first White House dinner with the President of the United States. The President was then Jimmy Carter. The President said to us Governors at a very nice dinner--just the Governors and their spouses and the President and Mrs. Carter: Governors, go to Japan. Persuade them to make in the United States what they sell in the United States. I remember I called Dean Rusk, who had been Secretary of State, and asked him to visit with me. I talked to him about how to do this.

Off I went to Japan, which is not something I planned to do when I was walking across Tennessee trying to be the Governor. I met with the Nissan officials in Tokyo in the fall of 1979. At that time, Japanese companies seemed so powerful that there were books coming out saying they might take over the United States economy, but they were not making here what they sold here. They were making Nissan cars and trucks in Japan. They were making a decision about where to locate in our country. I took with me a photograph of the United States at night taken from a satellite. They asked: Where is Tennessee? I said: It is right in the middle of the lights. That reduced the shipping and transportation costs. Then the next decision was: Where in the center did they want to go? Every State north of us did not have a right-to- work law. Tennessee and the States around us did. Nissan chose Tennessee, and they and the General Motors plant that later came and the Volkswagen plant and thousands of suppliers have helped our middle class raise incomes over the last 30 years. A third of our jobs are auto manufacturing jobs because we provided an environment in which automakers can compete in the world marketplace.

Nissan said today that soon they will be making in the United States 85 percent of what they sell in the United States, which makes them a very American company. That is what we want. But this decision says we throw a big wet blanket over all the auto suppliers and manufacturers who might be thinking about moving into Tennessee or opening new plants in Tennessee or suppliers who might be wishing to follow Boeing to South Carolina because it says you cannot make that decision.

We have never had that kind of law in the United States. We have had a right-to-work law on the books since 1947. States have a right to adopt it or not to adopt it. The legislation I am offering today on behalf of 34 Senators does not change that, but it does preserve the right of States to adopt a right-to-work law, the right of employees to join or not to join a union, and the right of employers to make decisions about where to locate their plants and their ability to speak in public about what they are doing.

This is a most consequential decision. It is one that deserves the attention of every Senator because as the Boeing chairman, who is the head of President Obama's Export Council,

wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week, a union State would not be able to attract a manufacturer because a manufacturer might be afraid that any expansion could never be done in a right-to-work State. By simple mathematics, if Boeing, which is our largest exporter--155,000 employees in the United States, another 15,000 around the world--has a disincentive or if it cannot expand a new production line in a right- to-work State and if it might think twice about expanding in any other State, then where is it going to go? It is going to go to some other country.

This decision by the acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board is the single most important action I have seen in years that would rush American jobs overseas in pursuit of an environment in which they can build and manufacture competitively. It is just the reverse of what President Carter said to the Governors 30 years ago when he said: Governors, go to Japan. Persuade them to make here what they sell here.

We did that. They came here. They are making 85 percent of what they sell here. We want Volkswagen to do that. We want General Motors to do that. We want Ford to do that. We want Boeing to do that. And if we say to them, But we are going to tell you, the Federal Government is going to tell you where you have to locate your plants, you are going to override section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act which was passed in 1947 and which has created an environment which has permitted American manufacturing to succeed.

All one has to do is read David Halberstam's book ``The Reckoning'' in the late 1980s to see that if our entire auto industry were still locked in Detroit, it would not be as competitive as it is today--cars made in America. I know that firsthand because I saw it happen when Nissan came to Tennessee. They did not hire a bunch of people from Japan to run the plant. They went to Detroit. They got Ford executives who knew how to run a plant but were not allowed to by the environment there, and they put them at a start-from-scratch place and created the most efficient automobile plant in North America.

We welcome also the General Motors plant and the United Auto Workers to their Spring Hill location in Tennessee. That is what a right-to- work State is where you can choose to join a union or not to join a union. Both can operate. Employees make the decision.

But when the Federal Government starts telling any company--a Boeing or a Boeing supplier, an auto company or an auto supplier or any manufacturing company--you cannot locate in a right-to-work State, they probably will not locate in a non-right-to-work State. Where are they likely to go? Mexico, Europe, Japan. Boeing sells airplanes all around the world. It can make airplanes all around the world. If we persist in policies such as this, instead of having a situation where our largest exporter has 170,000 employees, more than 150,000 of which are in the United States, we will turn that right upside down and they will be making 85 percent of their airplanes in the countries where they sell them, and the United States will have a lot fewer jobs.

This is a consequential matter that I hope attracts Democratic as well as Republican support. It preserves the right-to-work law. It preserves the choices of employees. It preserves the decision of corporations to make their own decisions about where to locate. It would stop a Federal Government regulation which is the single most effective action I know about to chase American jobs overseas and lower family incomes.

Exhibit 1

[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 29, 2011]

The White House vs. Boeing: A Tennessee Tale

(By Lamar Alexander)

The National Labor Relations Board has moved to stop Boeing

from building airplanes at a nonunion plant in South

Carolina, suggesting that a unionized American company cannot

expand its operations into one of the 22 states with right-

to-work laws, which protect a worker's right to join or not

join a union. (New Hampshire's legislature has just approved

its becoming the 23rd.)

This reminds me of a White House state dinner in February

1979, when I was governor of Tennessee. President Jimmy

Carter said, ``Governors, go to Japan. Persuade them to make

here what they sell here.''

``Make here what they sell here'' was then the union battle

cry, part of an effort to slow the tide of Japanese cars and

trucks entering the U.S. market.

Off I flew to Tokyo to meet with Nissan executives who were

deciding where to put their first U.S. manufacturing plant. I

carried with me a photograph taken at night from a satellite

showing the country at night with all its lights on.

``Where is Tennessee?'' the executives asked. ``Right in

the middle of the lights,'' I answered, pointing out that

locating a plant in the population center reduces the cost of

transporting cars to customers. That center had migrated

south from the Midwest, where most U.S. auto plants were, to

Kentucky and Tennessee.

Then the Japanese examined a second consideration:

Tennessee has a right-to-work law and Kentucky does not. This

meant that in Kentucky workers would have to join the United

Auto Workers union. Workers in Tennessee had a choice.

In 1980 Nissan chose Tennessee, a state with almost no auto

jobs. Today auto assembly plants and suppliers provide one-

third of our state's manufacturing jobs. Tennessee is the

home for production of the Leaf, Nissan's all-electric

vehicle, and the batteries that power it. Recently Nissan

announced that 85% of the cars and trucks it sells in the

U.S. will be made in the U.S.--making it one of the largest

``American'' auto companies and nearly fulfilling Mr.

Carter's request of 30 years ago.

But now unions want to make it illegal for a company that

has experienced repeated strikes to move production to a

state with a right-to-work law. What would this mean for the

future of American auto jobs? Jobs would flee overseas as

manufacturers look for a competitive environment in which to

make and sell cars around the world.

It's happened before. David Halberstam's 1986 book, ``The

Reckoning''--about the decline of the domestic American auto

industry--tells the story. Halberstam quotes American Motors

President George Romney, who criticized the ``shared

monopoly'' consisting of the Big Three Detroit auto

manufacturers and the UAW. ``There is nothing more vulnerable

than entrenched success,'' Romney warned. Detroit ignored

upstarts like Nissan who in the 1960s began selling funny

little cars to American consumers. We all know what happened

to employment in the Big Three companies.

Even when Detroit sought greener pastures in a right-to-

work state, its ``partnership'' with the United Auto Workers

could not compete. In 1985, General Motors located its $5

billion Saturn plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., 40 miles from

Nissan, hoping side-by-side competition would help the

Americans beat the Japanese. After 25 years, nonunion Nissan

operated the most efficient auto plant in North America. The

Saturn/UAW partnership never made a profit. GM closed Saturn

last year.

Nissan's success is one reason why Volkswagen recently

located in Chattanooga, and why Honda, Toyota, BMW, Kia,

Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai and thousands of suppliers have chosen

southeastern right-to-work states for their plants. Under

right-to-work laws, employees may join unions, but mostly

they have declined. Three times workers at the Nissan plant

in Smyrna, Tenn., rejected organizing themselves like Saturn

employees a few miles away.

Our goal should be to make it easier and cheaper to create

private-sector jobs in this country. Giving workers the right

to join or not to join a union helps to create a competitive

environment in which more manufacturers like Nissan can make

here 85% of what they sell here.

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.

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. 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. 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.

Sure.

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.

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.

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.

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,

SusanM. Collins,

Robert Menendez,

Lisa Murkowski,

Jack Reed,

Roger F. Wicker,

Charles E. Schumer,

John F. Kerry,

Mark Begich,

Kirsten E. Gillibrand,

Scott Brown,

Jeane Shaheen,

Sheldon Whitehouse,

Olympia J. Snowe.

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

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 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.

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.