Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is indeed unique that on New Year's Eve we are in session. We still have some very important business we need to take care of for our Nation. We should not have put our country in this position. We should have acted well before December 31. We all understand that, but it is important that we get this work done in the remaining hours of this term of Congress.

On Thursday, the 113th Congress will take the oath of office and we will start a new Congress. Before that, we must get the work of this Congress finished. At a minimum, we need to deal with the impact of tax rates that would go up for every taxpayer in this country unless we take action before this Congress adjourns.

We need to protect middle-income families. We all talked about it. We know that needs to be done. We need to protect Americans from the tax increases that will take effect for the overwhelming majority of Americans--those who are middle-income taxpayers. We need to do this first and foremost because it would create an incredible burden on working families to pay an extra $2,000 to $4,000 of taxes, and we also need to do it to help our economy. That type of money coming out of the economy through additional tax increases would have a very detrimental impact on our economy, which is coming out of a tough period.

We also need to deal with what we call sequestration. I was listening to the senior Senator from Maryland, chair of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski, talk about the effects of sequestration. She is right. Some people may not understand that term, but what it means is that there will be dramatic cuts in governmental agencies, which will not only affect the performance of those agencies but also the contracts they let to the private sector. It will affect not only our domestic budget but our military budget. She went through a lot of the different impacts it will have, from children who are in jeopardy of losing their support from Head Start, to our researchers being denied the resources they need in order to do work that is vital to our economy.

The bottom line is that if we allow the across-the-board cuts to take effect, it will hurt our economy and hurt the job growth in America. We cannot allow that to happen. I expect that we can get this done before this Congress adjourns on January 2.

We also need to deal with what we call the physician fix of Medicare. We can get that done in this Congress. If not, doctors who treat our seniors and our disabled population will find that there will be almost a 30-percent cut in their physician reimbursement. Many physicians would say they are not going to treat seniors any longer with that type of reduction. We understand that. We need to make sure we take care of protecting the reimbursement rates for physicians in the Medicare system. We need to get that done and can get it done before this Congress adjourns.

We need to extend unemployment insurance. There are millions of Americans who depend on unemployment insurance in a soft economic time. They cannot find jobs. Again, this is not only important for the individuals who would be cut off if we do not extend the benefits, it is also important for our economic recovery.

We also need to extend the farm bill. We have heard the consequences if we don't do that. I had hoped they could pass a bill--which this Chamber passed--over in the House. It is unlikely we can get that done in the next 2 days, so we need to make sure we at least extend the current FARM policies in order to make sure we protect the security of our agricultural community and food prices here in America.

All of that we can get done. Hopefully we can get it done tonight but certainly before we adjourn on January 2. We need to complete that work in order to keep our economy moving and to protect the interests of the people in this Nation. Quite frankly, I don't think there is much disagreement in this Chamber as to the method to get that done.

I am disappointed that we are not dealing with a broader budget framework for our Nation. We should have done that well before now. We should do it for many reasons. For one thing, we need it. We have a deficit that is not controllable. We have to bring our deficit into better control. In order to do that, we need to reduce spending and we need the revenues in order to be able to give the right blueprint for America's future and growth.

We also need to get a broader package done because of predictability. The private sector needs to know what the rules are, and they need to know what the Tax Code and spending programs are going to look like. They need to have the confidence that we have our budget under better control. We should have gotten that done.

I have spoken several times on the floor about how we should have adopted the Simpson-Bowles framework. To me, that was a bipartisan, balanced approach for how we could have gotten out of our fiscal problems. We are not going to be able to get that done in the next 2 days before we adjourn on January 2, but we need to recognize that we need to do that.

I have heard a lot of my colleagues come to the floor to speak, and I have to clarify a couple of points. Simpson-Bowles was basically a $4 trillion, 10-year deficit reduction package. It was booked up as the right approach. Many of us have been asking, how we can get $4 trillion done? Well, it is interesting that with the Simpson-Bowles approach, approximately 60 percent was in spending reductions and about 40 percent was in revenue. That was a balanced way to bring down spending but also bring in the revenues we need in order to get our budget into better balance. That is the proper way to do it.

Since the recommendations of Simpson-Bowles, we have done $1 trillion in deficit reduction in domestic discretionary spending. We have gotten that done. Those budget caps are real, and we are living within those budget caps. Sequestration--these across-the-board cuts--would get another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts done. We should not do it through sequestration, but all of us recognize that we need to find ways to reduce spending further.

I have talked on the floor about how we can get that done, particularly in the health care field. Yes, we have to reduce the cost of Medicare, but the way to do it is to reduce the cost of health care. We would have fewer readmissions to hospitals if we implemented the right delivery system protocols, and we would save money for our economy and Medicare. If we use preventive health care appropriately, people will enter our health care system in a less costly way, with more people insured and less use of emergency rooms. Once again, we save money.

Our committees need to come up with these solutions. It is not going to happen with two or three people getting together and coming up with a package. We need the Senate and its committees to work and come up with the right way to reduce the cost of these programs. I think we can do it basically by making the health care system more efficient, and that is much better than cutting benefits. I hope we can work together to get that done. We need to do that.

Yes, we need revenue. I heard some of my colleagues come here and say: Well, look at all the revenue we are going to get under this supposed agreement that has been talked about, which hopefully we will get as early as tonight. We already made a compromise. The rate at which no American will see any increase in taxes looks as if it will be higher than $250,000. It has been reported it is going to be closer to $400,000. OK. Well, now, what does that mean? That means we are going to get less revenue as a result of this agreement reached tonight. The numbers I have seen--and this may very well change based upon the agreement; hopefully, we are going to have an agreement--but somewhere around $500 billion to $600 billion. That is far short of the $1.2 trillion or $1.4 trillion we have been talking about--the whole--in order to reach that $4 trillion number we all say is the minimum amount we need as per the Simpson-Bowles numbers. So we are going to need more revenue.

Here is the rub, here is the challenge: When we start looking to get more revenue, we are talking about now getting it through tax reform. We all understand we have to reform our Tax Code. It is difficult to do that when we have to produce revenue at the same time because people are looking at trying to do something about rates. Well, since we need the revenue for the deficit reduction package, it will be more difficult.

My point is this: I am disappointed we haven't gotten our work done well before tonight, but it is urgent that we work together, Democrats and Republicans, and get the minimum amount done the American people expect; that is, to make sure tax rates don't go up for middle-income families. We can get

that done. We can get that done as early as tonight. We should avoid the immediate sequestration order because that makes no sense--these across-the-board cuts--and figure out a way we can have a much more orderly process for reducing government spending.

We should make sure Medicare is not jeopardized by having a physician fix done in this compromise. We should make sure for the people who are getting unemployment insurance, to maintain their benefits. And we should extend the farm bill. That we can get done in the remaining hours of this legislative session.

I urge my colleagues to continue to work together. I am hopeful our leaders are negotiating a package that can be brought to the floor as early as tonight, certainly before we adjourn on January 2. If we do that, then I think we have completed as much of our business as we can, as well as setting up for the debate in the 113th Congress which will indeed be challenging. But I urge us to work together and put the interests of the American people first.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to the Senators who will not be returning when the 113th Congress commences next month. I have already spoken about Senator Kyl and about Senator Inouye, one of the truly great Americans and giants of this institution. At the time of his death, Senator Inouye was just a few weeks short of celebrating 50 years of Senate service. Only Senator Byrd served in this institution longer.

Turnover is a natural occurrence, but it's important to acknowledge that the Senators who are departing have served in the Senate for a combined total of 237 years, or nearly 20 years per Senator, on average. Add Senator Inouye, and the total is close to 300 years. That service represents an enormous amount of expertise on issues ranging from national defense and foreign affairs to the Federal budget to energy policy. The departing Senators will also take with them vast institutional knowledge and bipartisan friendships and working relationships that will leave a void we will need to fill.

Daniel Akaka

Mr. President, Daniel Akaka was born on September 11, 1924 just 4 days after Senator Inouye and, like Senator Inouye, he overcame the prejudice and hostility directed at Asian Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor to serve with distinction in the U.S. Army during World War II. Senator Akaka was a civilian worker in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from 1943 to 1945. Then, he was on Active Duty in the Army from 1945 to 1947.

After Senator Akaka finished his military service, he devoted his career to education, first as a teacher and then as a principal and later as an official in the State of Hawaii Department of Education. He was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1976 and then appointed to the Senate in 1990 upon the death of former Senator Spark Matsunaga. He won an election that November with nearly 54 percent of the vote, and was re-elected to the Senate in 1994, 2000, and 2006, twice receiving over 70 percent of the popular vote and never dropping below 61 percent.

Senator Akaka is America's first Senator of Native Hawaiian ancestry, and the only Chinese-American Member of the Senate. He chairs the Indian Affairs Committee and, like Senator Inouye, he has been a stalwart supporter of Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Pacific Islanders, Asian Americans, and Native Hawaiians. One of his highest priorities has been to secure passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, S. 675. That bill was just placed on the legislative calendar and hotlined, we need to get it across the finish line in the waning days of the 112th Congress. It's the right thing to do.

I have been privileged to work with Senator Akaka on efforts to protect the Federal workforce. Federal employees have no greater champion than Senator Akaka, who has chaired the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management. Senator Akaka is committed to making the Federal government an employer of choice capable of attracting and retaining the best and the brightest. In 2009, he introduced the Telework Enhancement Act, which became law in 2010 and expands telework opportunities at executive agencies. Senator Akaka has also fought to create a culture of transparency and fairness in the Federal Government, authoring the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which I was proud to cosponsor. President Obama signed that bill into law last month. And Senator Akaka has been a civil rights champion, partnering with Senators Lieberman, Collins, me, and others to support domestic partner benefits.

I also appreciate Senator Akaka's determined advocacy for financial literacy and consumer protections. His Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act was included in the 2009 Credit CARD Act. Now, thanks to Senator Akaka, credit card bills must include a disclosure box to show consumers how long it will take to repay their entire balance if they only make minimum monthly payments. The so-called ``Akaka Box'' also lets consumers know how much it will cost to pay off their outstanding balance within 36 months, which is a typical length of a debt management plan. Senator Akaka was also an author of portions of the Dodd-Frank Act addressing financial literacy (establishing the Office of Financial Education within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) and investor protections.

Throughout Senator Akaka's long and distinguished career in Congress, he has also been an ardent environmentalist. As a former chairman of the

Subcommittee on National Parks, legislation he authored has created, expanded, or otherwise improved each of Hawaii's national parks. His Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act established the Hawaii Experimental Tropical Forest in order to promote the recovery of tropical forests in Hawaii and undertake needed research to better protect tropical forests around the world.

A hallmark of Senator Akaka, like Senator Inouye, is his soft-spoken and courteous manner. The Senators from Hawaii have always treated the rest of us with respect and graciousness. They have reached across the aisle to foster bipartisan cooperation. And they have exhibited a rare and calming serenity when partisan tempers have boiled over. I will miss the warm and gentle and friendly personalities of Senators Akaka and Inouye, their wise counsel, and their service here in the United States Senate on behalf of Hawaiians and all Americans.

Jeff Bingaman

Mr. President, Jeff Bingaman is another Senator whose quiet demeanor belies his tremendous skill and effectiveness as a legislator. Senator Bingaman and I were born 2 days apart October 3 and October 5, 1943, respectively. Both of Senator Bingaman's parents were teachers, which may help explain his interest and involvement in educational policy. He graduated from a public school in a small town in New Mexico and then went to Harvard for his bachelor of arts degree and Stanford for his law degree. From 1968 to 1974, he served in the U.S. Army Reserve and in 1978, he was elected attorney general of New Mexico. Senator Bingaman was first elected to the Senate in 1982 and then won reelection four times, only once dipping below receiving at least 61 percent of the popular vote.

Senator Bingaman has worked on everything from drop-out prevention in schools with low student achievement and graduation rates to phasing out the waiting period for disabled individuals to become eligible for Medicare benefits and to eliminate it for people with life-threatening conditions to the establishment of ARPA-E the Advanced Research Projects Agency at the Department of Energy.

Earlier this month, the Energy Information Administration, EIA, reported that with improved efficiency of energy use and a shift away from the most carbon-intensive fuels, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions are likely to remain more than 5 percent below their 2005 level through 2040. Emissions from motor gasoline will decline as a result of the adoption of fuel economy standards, biofuel mandates, and shifts in consumer behavior. Emissions from coal used in the generation of electricity will decline as power generation shifts from coal to lower-carbon fuels, including natural gas and renewables. These are all significant accomplishments, made possible largely by Senator Bingaman's steady hand at the helm of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where he has helped to shape and pass all of the major energy bills for over the past decade.

In 2009, Senator Bingaman shepherded the Omnibus Public Land Management Act to passage. That legislation added wilderness protection to over 2 million acres, designated 1,100 miles of wild and scenic rivers, and added more than 2,800 miles to the national trail system. I believe it was the biggest wildness bill Congress has ever enacted after the original Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. The epitaph on the stone plaque where the great English architect Sir Christopher Wren is buried reads, ``If you seek his monument, look around you.'' The same could be said for Senator Bingaman with regard to the preservation of our natural world.

Two weeks ago, Senator Bingaman gave his farewell speech to the Senate and I would like to quote from the beginning of that speech. He remarked,

In 1981, in his first inaugural address, President Reagan

said, ``Government is not the solution to our problem;

government is the problem.''

I came to the Senate two years later in 1983 with the firm

belief that in most cases his statement was wrong.

I believed then and I believe now that the Federal

Government can be a constructive force for good; in

protecting and maintaining the civil liberties of all

Americans, in maintaining and strengthening our economy, in

protecting our environment and in helping Americans live

productive and fulfilling lives.

I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Bingaman and am grateful that for the past 30 years in public service, he has lived by those words and beliefs.

Scott Brown

Mr. President, Senator Brown shook the political establishment when he won a special election in 2010 to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Senator Brown was the first Republican to win a Senate race in Massachusetts since Senator Edward Brooke won re-election in 1972. Senator Brown previously served in the Massachusetts State House of Representatives from 1998 to 2004 and then in the State Senate from 2004-2010.

Senator Brown has been here just a short time, but he has been in the ``thick of things'', given his willingness to reach across the aisle. According to Congressional Quarterly, he has the second-most bipartisan voting record in the Senate, and helped the majority pass the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, STOCK, Act, which he co-authored; the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was passed with exactly 60 votes; the repeal of the Department of Defense's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy; the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment, HIRE, Act, and the New START Treaty. In the wake of the horrific shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Senator Brown was one of the first Republicans to express his support for reinstating the assault weapons ban. On a more parochial note, I would note that 9 months ago he started serving as an active member of the Maryland National Guard, and we are grateful for his service.

Kent Conrad

Mr. President, few, if any, other Senators have devoted as much time and energy as Senator Kent Conrad has to trying to balance the Federal budget. There are few more important--or difficult--tasks. The Senate will miss his steady hand as chairman of the Budget Committee and his expertise on budgetary and fiscal matters as a former tax commissioner for the State of North Dakota.

As Senator Conrad likes to note, he was 16 years old when he sat in the visitors gallery to this Chamber, listened to former Senator Hubert Humphrey speak on the Civil Rights Act, and decided that he wanted to be a United States Senator. Not only did he make that decision, he committed himself to running for a Senate seat in 1986 or 1988. After Senator Conrad received degrees from Stanford University and George Washington University, he worked as an assistant to our former colleague, Byron Dorgan, who was the North Dakota Tax Commissioner from 1969 to 1980. He succeeded Senator Dorgan as tax commissioner but beat him to the Senate, defeating Republican incumbent Mark Andrews, who had represented North Dakota as a Representative or Senator since 1963. Senator Conrad won that election in 1986. As he remarked in his farewell speech, ``That is the power of a plan.''

Senator Conrad pledged that he would not seek re-election in 1992 if the Federal budget deficit had not declined by the end of his term. He honored that pledge. But North Dakotans, to their credit, encouraged him to run in a special election that year to fill the remainder of Senator Quentin Burdick's term. Senator Burdick, the State's senior Senator at the time, had died in September 1992. Byron Dorgan was elected to replace Senator Conrad, and Senator Conrad was elected to replace Senator Burdick. He was re-elected three times, with 58 percent, 61 percent, and nearly 69 percent of the vote, respectively. This is an extraordinary political accomplishment in a largely Republican State and a testament to Senator Conrad and the discernment of North Dakota voters.

Agriculture is the single biggest component of the North Dakota economy. Senator Conrad has successfully fought to make sure farm programs benefit North Dakota's farmers and ranchers, from winning formula fights on drought legislation in his first term to leading the charge for disaster assistance in the late 1990s and playing a leading role in writing the 2002 and 2008 farm bills. North Dakota receives far more farm program benefits, on a per

capita basis, than any other State, and they have helped produce prosperity in farm country. Senator Conrad has also brought hundreds of millions of dollars to North Dakota to develop water supply and flood protection projects. Key victories include passage of the Dakota Water Resources Act to bring Federal legislation in line with North Dakota's contemporary water needs, ensuring Federal help to protect Fargo against record spring flooding, and securing over $1 billion to rebuild Grand Forks and build new flood controls following the 1997 flood, an additional $1 billion to respond to the ongoing, devastating flooding in the Devils Lake basin, and a final $1 billion to respond to the record breaking 2011 flooding in Minot.

While Senator Conrad has been a leader on farm and energy policies, he has been the leader on budget policies as chairman of the Budget Committee and a senior member of the Finance Committee. Six years ago, he teamed with former Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire to propose a bipartisan commission to tackle the debt. That idea ultimately prompted President Barack Obama to create the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, also known as the Bowles-Simpson (or Simpson-Bowles) Commission after its co-chairs, former Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, in 2010. Senator Conrad was appointed to the Commission and has subsequently served in the bipartisan ``Gang of Six'' and ``Gang of Eight'' groups of Senators attempting to find a budget compromise that would forestall the tax increases and automatic spending cuts scheduled to commence on January 1, 2013.

Senator Conrad has been indefatigable in his pursuit of sound budgetary and fiscal policies. He has brought a soberness to the subject, along with his trademark patience and extraordinary ability to discuss complex budget issues and large numbers in a way that is accessible to everyone accompanied, of course, by his myriad charts! Senator Conrad has always promoted a balanced approach to addressing our budget deficits that includes higher revenues, spending cuts, and appropriate entitlement reform. The Bowles-Simpson Commission's report, which he helped draft, should serve as a blueprint for Congressional action.

No matter how arduous the budget negotiations become, Senator Conrad is eternally optimistic. As he noted in his farewell speech,

I think we all know our country needs a plan now, and we

know plans have worked before. I was here in 1993 when we had

just come off the largest deficit in the history of the

United States. The country was in the doldrums. The economy

was just plugging along, not doing very well, we had a weak

recovery from a deep recession, and we passed a plan to get

the country back on track. We did it the old-fashioned way.

We made tough decisions, some that were unpopular, but it was

the right thing to do and it worked. We balanced the budget.

We had the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in

the Nation's history. Twenty-three million jobs were created,

and we were actually paying down the debt of the United

States at the end of the Clinton administration.

I share Senator Conrad's fervent hope that his farewell speech won't be his final Senate speech; he indicated that he will take to the floor again if we reach agreements in the next few days on the 2012 farm bill and the so-called fiscal cliff negotiations. If we do find a way forward, Senator Conrad will have played a key role in both instances. It has been my honor to serve on the Budget Committee under Senator Conrad's leadership.

Kay bailey Hutchison

Mr. President, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has been shattering glass ceilings her entire life in a career that has spanned law, banking, TV news reporting, owning a small business, and politics. She was one of five women in her University of Texas Law School class. She was the first Republican woman elected to the Texas House of Representatives. In 1990, she became state treasurer--the first Texas Republican woman elected to statewide office. Her 1993 special election victory to succeed Senator Lloyd Bentsen made her the first--and only--woman to represent Texas in the Senate. She was re-elected in 1994, 2000, and 2006, receiving over 60 percent of the popular vote in each instance. In 2001, she was named one of the 30 most powerful women in America by Ladies Home Journal.

Senator Hutchison was the Senate architect of our military forces' transformation from Cold War-based forward basing, with extensive overseas infrastructure, to a strategically balanced approach that emphasizes rapidly deployable military forces based at large, modern, centrally located U.S. military installations. As chair of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, she has played a crucial role in developing larger, soldier- and family-friendly U.S. installations and improving the quality of life and the quality of health care for our servicemen and women and their families. As ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Hutchison authored major legislation in 2005 and 2010 to create a balanced, bipartisan blueprint for America's post-Shuttle space program. She also protected $100 billion science and research investment in the International Space Station by paving way for commercial crews. Senator Hutchison is one of Senate's leading advocates for bolstering the Nation's science and technology education and competitiveness. In 2007, she co-sponsored the America COMPETES Act, which included her legislation to allow college students majoring in science, technology, engineering or mathematics--STEM--to be concurrently certified as elementary and secondary school teachers.

Senator Hutchison has been a strong voice for women's economic empowerment and family-supporting tax policies. She joined with my colleague, Senator Mikulski, in sponsoring the Homemaker IRA legislation, which was enacted in 1997 and allows affected spouses to make equal, $2,000, fully deductible contributions to individual retirement accounts, IRAs. She also successfully advocated for elimination of the marriage tax penalty. In 1975, while she was serving in the Texas House of Representatives, she sponsored pioneering legislation to protect rape victims by redefining consent and shielding them from invasive personal questions that implied ``blaming the victim.'' The Texas law became the national model for state laws to protect rape victims. In 2003, here in the Senate, she won passage of bill that created the national Amber Alert; more than 550 abducted children have since been reunited with their parents.

Senator Hutchison is also an accomplished author. In 2000, she and other woman Senators co-authored Nine and Counting: The Women of the Senate. In 2004, she wrote American Heroines: The Spirited Women Who Shaped Our Country, which was followed in 2007 by the bestselling book, Leading Ladies: American Trailblazers. I'm not sure, but I believe she is the only sitting U.S. Senator to have appeared on an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger with Chuck Norris!

Senator Hutchison has a solid conservative voting record and outlook. She is thoughtful, accessible, and collaborative. These qualities and her hard work have made her an outstanding Senator. We will miss her.

Herb Kohl

Mr. President, Senator Herb Kohl embodies the American dream. His parents were Jewish immigrants from Poland and Russia who started a chain of grocery and department stores. Senator Kohl earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Wisconsin in 1956 and a Master of Business Administration, MBA, degree from Harvard Business School in 1958. Between 1958 and 1964, Senator Kohl was a member of the United States Army Reserve. Senator Kohl had a highly successful business career before he was elected to the Senate in 1988 with 52 percent of the vote. In each successive re-election effort, his share of the popular vote rose, all the way up to more than 67 percent in 2006.

I have served with Senator Kohl on the Judiciary Committee and have seen firsthand his commitment to ensuring the fairness of our legal system.

Senator Kohl introduced legislation to create a tax credit for employer-provided child care after Congress passed the welfare reform bill in 1996, to help families move from welfare to work. The credit was codified in section 45F of the Internal Revenue Code as part of the package of tax cuts passed in 2001. Section 45F offers a tax credit for 25 percent of what it costs a business to

build and maintain an on-site child care facility and 10 percent of their expenses for child care resource and referral services. It is capped at $150,000 a year per company to target the benefit to small businesses.

Throughout his career, Senator Kohl has championed the National Institute of Standards & Technology's Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, MEP, a public-private partnership that provides technical support to small and medium manufacturers. Since MEP arrived in Wisconsin in 1998, its two centers have created or retained over 13,000 high quality manufacturing jobs with almost $2 billion in economic impact throughout the State. In 2007 and 2010, Senator Kohl introduced bipartisan legislation to authorize appropriations for MEP and, in both instances, those bills became public law: the former as part of the America COMPETES Act of 2007; the latter as part of the American COMPETES Reauthorization of 2010. For over a decade, and despite budgetary pressures, MEP has received the resources it needs to continue to help small manufacturers in Wisconsin and across the nation, prompting the American Small Manufacturers Coalition to name Senator Kohl a ``champion for small manufacturers.''

Senator Kohl's quiet but effective contributions to our Nation aren't limited to his service here in the Senate. He is a committed philanthropist, too. For instance, he donated $25 million to the University of Wisconsin at Madison for the construction of its new sports arena. It was the largest single donation in University's history. In 1990, he established the Herb Kohl Educational Foundation Achievement Award Program, which provides annual grants totaling $100,000 to 100 graduating seniors, 100 teachers, and 100 schools throughout Wisconsin. And he is much beloved in his hometown for purchasing the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team in 1985 to prevent the team from being moved to another city.

Joe Lieberman

Mr. President, few Senators have struck as independent a path in recent years as Senator Joe Lieberman. He was the first prominent Democrat to chastise then-President Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky but did not support removing the President from office. He was the Democratic Party's nominee to be Vice President in 2000--the first Jewish candidate on a national party ticket in American history. Senator Lieberman has confounded people because he has been willing to follow his conscience and to place principle over party loyalty.

Senator Lieberman is a proud son of Connecticut. His parents ran a liquor store in Stamford; both his paternal and maternal grandparents were immigrants from Poland and Austria, respectively. He graduated from Yale University--the first member of his family to graduate from college--and then received his law degree from Yale Law School. In 1970, when Senator Lieberman was just 28, he was elected to the Connecticut State Senate as a ``reform Democrat''. He served in the State senate for 10 years, including six as majority leader. In 1982, he won the first of two terms as Connecticut's Attorney General, and was immensely popular for championing environmental and consumer protection.

Senator Lieberman pulled off perhaps the biggest upset of the 1988 election cycle when he defeated incumbent Republican Senator Lowell Weicker in a close race, winning by just 10,000 votes. But 6 years later, when Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress, Senator Lieberman won re-election with over 67 percent of the vote. In 2000, while he simultaneously ran for Vice President, he received over 63 percent of the vote for the Senate seat he held.

Here in the Senate, Senator Lieberman has been a strong advocate of recruiting, training, and equipping a 21st century fighting force and using it to defend America's security, values, and interests. Senator Lieberman was one of five Democrats to co-sponsor S.J. Res. 2, which authorized the use of force in the first Gulf War in 1991. He partnered with Senator McCain to push for U.S. intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s, and he was a proponent of former President George W. Bush's ``surge'' strategy in Iraq.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Senator Lieberman led the charge to establish the 9/11 Commission, whose mission was to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the attacks. Then, in response to the Commission's recommendations, Senator Lieberman worked with Senator Susan Collins to implement the largest reorganization of the intelligence community in over half a century. As Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, Senator Lieberman led Congressional efforts to establish the Department of Homeland Security, which integrated all or part of 22 different Federal departments and agencies. He has since continued to oversee the Department's work in his position as ranking member of the Committee between 2003 and 2006 and as Chairman again since 2007.

Senator Lieberman is a committed environmentalist. He played a key role in drafting and passing the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, which established the sulfur dioxide ``cap and trade'' program to combat acid rain, one of the most successful programs in history. He has introduced every major climate change bill in the Senate, and every bill that has been brought to the floor for a vote. In 1994, Senator Lieberman worked with then-representative Nancy Johnson, a Republican, to secure Wild and Scenic River status for the Upper Farmington River, the first in the State of Connecticut. He has led several successful filibusters against legislation that would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, to oil and gas exploration; he also has introduced legislation every two years to protect ANWR permanently.

In 1994, Senator Lieberman introduced the Video Game Ratings Act, held hearings on violence in video games, and played an important role in establishing a rating system and restricting sales of mature games to minors. In the wake of the terrible tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, he has called for the creation of a national commission to study gun violence in a comprehensive way. In 1998, Senator Lieberman introduced and helped pass the Charter School Expansion Act, which expanded the number of high-quality charter schools available to children across the United States. Three years later, he was a lead sponsor of the No Child Left Behind legislation, NCLB. Because of his involvement, he was invited to join the NCLB conference committee despite not serving on the committee of jurisdiction. In 2007, Senator Lieberman was a lead sponsor of the National Innovation Act and the National Innovation Education Act. These were underlying pieces of the final American COMPETES Act, intended to spur innovation and ensure that our workforce has the education and skills necessary to compete in a global economy. In 2010, Senator Lieberman led the successful fight to repeal the Department of Defense's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. He also has introduced legislation to provide domestic partnership benefits to federal employees, and was an original cosponsor of the Employment Non- Discrimination Act.

Senator Lieberman is a highly accomplished Senator because he has put pragmatism above ideology and because he has been willing to forge bipartisan alliances and compromises. He is a deeply religious man whose motto might well be the prophet Isaiah's plaintive cry, ``Come now, and let us reason together'' (Isaiah 1:18). The Senate will miss his devotion to public service, cheerfulness, and optimism.

Richard Lugar

Mr. President, Senator Richard Lugar isn't just one of our leading Senators; he's one of the Nation's greatest statesmen over the past quarter-century. We have been fortunate indeed to have Senator Lugar at the helm of the Foreign Relations Committee, either as chairman or ranking member, for so many years. He is quite literally a gentleman and a scholar. After graduating first in his class from high school and from Denison University, he attended Pembroke College at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, where he earned a second bachelor's degree and a master's degree in 1956. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1956 to 1960, earning the rank of Lieutenant, Junior Grade. While he was in the Navy, he was an intelligence briefer for Admiral Arleigh Burke.

To this day, Senator Lugar shows his fifth generation Hoosier roots, managing the family's 600-acre corn, soybean, and tree farm. When he was just 35, he was elected Mayor of Indianapolis and served two highly successful terms and was elected President of the National League of Cities in 1971. Senator Lugar defeated incumbent Senator Vance Hartke in 1976 with 60 percent of the vote in a year when the Democratic candidate for president, Jimmy Carter, won the election. He was re- elected five times. On three of those occasions, he received well over 60 percent of the vote. In 2006, he received over 87 percent of the vote while Democrats were recapturing control of Congress for the first time in 12 years.

Before Senator Lugar chaired the Foreign Relations Committee, he chaired the Agriculture Committee, during which time he authored the 1996 Farm bill. He established a biofuels research program to help increase U.S. utilization of ethanol and combustion fuels, and led initiatives to streamline the U.S. Department of Agriculture, reform the Food Stamp Program, and preserve the Federal school lunch program. Over the course of his career, he has been deeply involved in food security issues, both domestically and around the globe.

Senator Lugar generally holds conservative economic views, but he supports President Obama's DREAM Act and certain restrictions on gun ownership. He was the first Republican Senator to announce his support for President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor. He also voted in favor of President Obama's second Supreme Court nominee, Solicitor General Elena Kagan. I was proud and privileged to work with Senator Lugar on an extractive industries transparency provision that we are able to include in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act. And I have learned so much from Senator Lugar serving on the Foreign Relations Committee.

In a long career of dazzling accomplishments, Senator Lugar has made his greatest mark with respect to foreign affairs. In 2006, Time magazine rated him as one of America's 10 Best Senators in an article entitled ``The Wise Man''. According to the article, Senator Lugar's ``thinking has often proved to be ahead of the curve.'' He pushed for democratic governments in the Philippines and South Africa and the development of alternative fuels to reduce our reliance on foreign supplies of oil in the 1980s. He has been influential in gaining Senate ratification of treaties to reduce the world's use, production, and stockpiling of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. In 1991, he collaborated with then-Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat from Georgia and chairman of the Armed Service Committee, to eliminate latent weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. To date, the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has deactivated more than 7,500 nuclear warheads. Three months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Senator Lugar enunciated the ``Lugar Doctrine'', which commits the United States to use ``all of its military, diplomatic and economic power--without question--to ensure that life threatening weapons of mass destruction everywhere are accounted, contained and destroyed'' and which ``asserts that the U.S. should encourage democratic institutions and decrease dependence on foreign energy sources.'' Few, if any, people have done more than Senator Lugar over the past 36 years to ensure security, promote freedom and peace, and reduce the threat of war.

In 2008, Senator Lugar received the Paul H. Douglas Ethics in Government Award, which is awarded by the University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs. He gave a profound speech on the nature of bipartisanship when he received that award. I think the speech perfectly exemplifies Senator Lugar and his approach to governance, and I would exhort everyone to read it and take it to heart. This is part of what he said:

Too often bipartisanship is misrepresented as the byproduct

of moderate political views or the willingness to strike

deals. We should be clear that bipartisanship is not

centrism, and it is more than just compromise. It is a way of

approaching one's duties as a public servant that requires

self-reflection, discipline of study, and faith in the good

will of others.

I believe this type of independent self reflection and

discipline of thought is at the core of any politician's

attempt to be truly bipartisan. In today's political

environment, politicians are bombarded by demands from our

respective parties and loyalist groups to adopt certain

orthodox positions. To some extent this is a necessary

element of a two-party system. But when positions are adopted

purely on the basis of partisan advantage or strategic

opposition to the other party, our system begins to break

down. Some members may genuinely agree with their party 50

percent of the time, others may genuinely agree with their

party 99 percent of the time. The question is whether a

politician arrives at those conclusions through honest

reflection and careful study of the issue or whether they

arrive there because they have adopted an ``us-versus-them''

mentality. Increasingly at all levels of American politics,

capable leaders are succumbing to the temptation to put

politics first. . .

Particularly destructive is the misperception in some

quarters that governing with one vote more than 50 percent is

just as good or better than governing with 60 or 70 percent

support. Under this theory, the compromises necessary to

achieve greater consensus among the American people and

Congress merely dilutes the strength of one's partisan

accomplishments.

The problem with this thinking is that whatever is won

today through division is usually lost tomorrow. The

relationships that are destroyed and the ill will that is

created make subsequent achievements that much more

difficult. If the minority is not a participant, it begins to

see its job as frustrating the majority, rather than as

trying to advance its ideas or contributing to good

legislation. A 51 percent mentality deepens cynicism,

sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national

reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard

times. Leaders should not content themselves with 51 percent

if they can expand a working majority through outreach,

judicious rhetoric, bipartisan alliances, and thoughtful

argumentation. National unity is not simply a civic nicety;

it counts in real policy terms. . . .

Senator Lugar concluded his speech by remarking that former Senator Paul Douglas' life ``provides us with an extraordinary example of what can be achieved through thoughtful dedication to public service.'' The same can be said for Senator Lugar.

Ben Nelson

Mr. President, Senator Ben Nelson is a native Nebraskan who earned his B.A., M.A., and J.D. degrees from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. He embarked on a highly successful career in the insurance industry, working for Central National Insurance Group of Omaha. In 1975, he became Nebraska's State insurance director before going back to work for Central National Insurance first as an executive vice president, and then as president.

With regard to politics, Senator Nelson decided to start at the top. In 1990, in his first run for office, he was elected as Governor of Nebraska. In 1994, he was re-elected with 74 percent of the vote. During his tenure, he cut spending relative to the previous administration by 64 percent, promoted legislation to cut crime through the Safe Streets Act & Juvenile Crime Bill, advocated for low-income families through the Kids Connection health care system, enacted welfare reforms, and cut taxes for over 400,000 middle income Nebraska families. He was forced to step down because of term limits, but then he successfully ran for the Senate seat vacated by Senator Bob Kerrey. While that race was close, he was re-elected in 2006 with just under 64 percent of the vote.

Senator Nelson is a moderate to conservative Democrat, which is fitting given the conservative tilt of Nebraska voters. For the past 12 years, he has frequently reached out to Republicans to try to get things done. For instance, he was a member of the co-called ``Gang of 14'' that helped to resolve the judicial nominations controversy in 2005. He has worked hard to protect and promote the State's agricultural interests, becoming a champion of ethanol and farm-based alternative energy sources. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee and has been at the center of shaping our Nation's defense policies, securing a new headquarters for STRATCOM, and a new Veterans Administration hospital for Nebraska's veterans.

Senator Nelson has always been true to his beliefs and true to his word, and it has been a pleasure to work with him. His desire to seek bipartisan compromise is a noble one. He likes to quote Henry Ford, who said, ``Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is

success''. Senator Nelson has always heeded those words; we would be well-served to do likewise in his absence.

Olympia Snowe

Mr. President, few people have faced the personal adversity Senator Olympia Snowe has overcome on her way to becoming the youngest Republican woman ever elected to the United States House of Representatives; the first woman to have served in both houses of a state legislature and both houses of the U.S. Congress, and the first Greek-American congresswoman. Senator Snowe, a first-generation American, was orphaned at a young age and then her uncle, who was raising her with his family, died a few years later. Her first husband was killed in a car accident when she was just 26 and, later, her 20- year-old stepson died from a heart ailment. And yet, Senator Snowe didn't just persevere. She ran for her late husband's seat in the Maine House of Representatives at the age of 26 and won. She was re-elected to the State House in 1974 and, in 1976, won election to the Maine Senate. She was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978, and represented Maine's 2nd Congressional District from 1979 to 1995.

Senator Snowe successfully ran for the seat vacated by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell in 1994, winning 60 percent of the vote. She was re-elected in 2000 and 2006, winning 69 percent and 74 percent of the vote, respectively. In nearly 40 years of holding elective office, Senator Snowe has never lost an election.

During her time in office, Senator Snowe has been a quintessential Yankee Republican, putting her constituents and the Nation ahead of political party. While she served in the House, she was a member of the moderate wing of the Republican Party known as Gypsy Moths, working with southern Democrats known as Boll Weevils to forge bipartisan budgets. Here in the Senate, she was a member of the Gang of 14. Prior to that, during the Senate's 1999 impeachment trial of then-President Bill Clinton, she worked with her Maine colleague, Senator Susan Collins, to find a middle ground approach, drafting a motion that would have allowed the Senate to vote separately on the charges and the remedy a ``finding of fact'' resolution. When the motion failed, Senator Snowe and Senator Collins demonstrated the courage of their convictions by voting to acquit the President on the grounds that his actions didn't warrant his removal from office.

During consideration of the 2001 tax cuts, Senator Snowe worked with former Senator Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat from Arkansas, to increase the amount of the child tax credit and make it refundable, so that low income families who don't earn enough to pay federal taxes could still benefit from the credit, ensuring that it would assist an additional 13 million more children and lift 500,000 of those children out of poverty. But 2 years later, she joined Senators Lincoln Chafee and John McCain as the only Republicans to oppose the 2003 tax cuts. Pragmatism, not fealty to a rigid political ideology, has been her guiding principle.

Senator Snowe was one of eight Republican Senators to vote to repeal the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. Although she represents a largely rural, pro-hunting State, she has supported sensible gun control measures. She teamed with our former colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy, to co-author the landmark Genetic Nondiscrimination Act, which prevents insurance companies and employers from denying or dropping coverage based on genetic tests. I have been proud to work with Senator Snowe on a number of small business initiatives, including our legislation to increase the cap on surety bonds.

Senator Snowe has stated repeatedly that she inherited a legacy of bipartisanship and independence from former Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who delivered her seminal ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech against the bullying tactics, smear campaigns, and intimidation of former Senator Joe McCarthy. As Senator Snowe remarked in her ``farewell'' speech the other day, Senator Smith's stand demonstrated truly uncommon courage and principled independence. Senator Snowe has been a worthy heir and guardian of Senator Smith's legacy. We will miss her common sense, her pragmatic approach to governing, and her ability to promote bipartisan consensus.

Jim Webb

Mr. President, Senator James Webb is a highly decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War, the first Naval Academy graduate to serve as a civilian Secretary of the Navy, lawyer, and accomplished author. Senator Webb grew up in a military family and noted in his 2004 book, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, that his ancestors fought in every major American war. Senator Webb's father, a career officer in the U.S. Air Force, flew B-17s and B-29s during World War II, and dropped cargo during the Berlin Airlift. After Senator Webb graduated from Annapolis, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps. As a first lieutenant during the Vietnam War he served as a platoon commander with Delta Company, 1st Battalion 5th Marines. He earned a Navy Cross, the second highest decoration in the Navy and Marine Corps for heroism in Vietnam. He also earned the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts. Senator Webb's son Jimmy has continued the Webb family's long, proud record of military service to our Nation as a rifleman and Marine Corps Sergeant, served a tour of duty in Iraq with Weapons Company, 1st Battalion 6th Marines.

Senator Webb has served just one term but he has made it a productive one, passing the 21st Century GI Bill to provide the same educational benefits to post-9/11 veterans that the World War II ``Greatest Generation'' received. He introduced the bill his first day in office, and saw it enacted into law. More than 800,000 veterans have since received educational benefits through the program. What a wonderful legacy for Senator Webb to have.

Senator Webb also dedicated his time in office to refocusing and rebalancing our relationships in East Asia. He has long argued that getting mired in Iraq and Afghanistan was a strategic mistake, and that our long-term interests lie with Asia. As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations East Asia Subcommittee, he visited nearly every country in the region, focusing particularly on the countries of mainland southeast Asia and our treaty allies. His 2009 trip to Burma was the first by a U.S. leader in 10 years; the visit is widely credited as the beginning of efforts to change our relationship with that country. Senator Webb remains the only U.S. leader to have met with Than Shwe, the former junta leader, and he also met with Aung San Suu Kyi while she was under house arrest. Senator Webb has also worked continuously to resolve the basing issues with our main ally in the region, Japan, and to help pass a trade agreement with South Korea.

A hallmark of Senator Webb's lifelong service to our Nation is his willingness to tackle the tough, unglamorous issues. Here in the Senate, he led an effort to reform our criminal justice system, introducing legislation to establish a commission of experts to review the entire spectrum of the American criminal justice system from drug laws to sentencing, prison conditions, recidivism, and judicial reform.

Mr. President, these men and women who will be leaving the Senate soon have made extraordinary sacrifices to serve our Nation. We are fortunate that they have chosen to spend significant parts of their lives in public service. All Americans owe them a debt of gratitude. Those of us who will be in the Senate next month when the 113th Congress convenes can best honor the legacy of our departing colleagues by reaching across the aisle as they have done so many times to forge bipartisan consensus and solutions to our Nation's most vexing problems. The men and women who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this Congress understand that compromise isn't a dirty word; it is the genius at the heart of our political system. We will miss them.

Joseph Lieberman

Mr. President, I call up the Cardin amendment that was made in order, amendment No. 3393.

Mr. President, this amendment is totally noncontroversial. In the bill, they increase the surety bond limits for small businesses from $2 million to $5 million. It was an amendment I worked with Senator Landrieu on in the Small Business Committee. It was included in the Recovery Act. It expired. It has been very successful. It has generated a lot more contracts than anticipated. Making the limit permanent has no cost.

This amendment would strike the provision from this bill since it has already been included in the National Defense Authorization Act, which has passed this body at $6.5 million, made permanent. So there is no need to include this provision in the supplemental appropriations bill.

I know of no controversy on this amendment. We do not need any debate time. I am hopeful we will clear this for a voice vote tomorrow.

I wish to thank Senator Landrieu for her work and Senator Snowe on the Small Business Committee and thank Senator Mikulski for her work.

The Small Business Administration's surety bond program provides a guarantee on surety bonds, which are issued by contractors to assure customers that contract work will be completed.

The surety bond program gives small businesses critical support to secure work, which will be especially important during recovery and rebuilding efforts after Superstorm Sandy.

The underlying bill contains a provision, requested by the administration, which would increase the maximum surety bond guaranteed by SBA from $2 million to $5 million.

The Defense authorization conference agreement contains a provision that would raise the maximum to $6.5 million.

The amendment strikes the provision in the supplemental related to SBA surety bonds in order to avoid conflicting with the House and Senate's conference agreement in the Defense authorization bill.

This amendment is a simple but important technical fix supported by Chairwoman Landrieu and Ranking Member Snowe of the Small Business Committee.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. TESTER addressed the Chair.

Fine. I know of no further requests for time and I am prepared for a vote.

I yield the floor.

I have no further debate. I am prepared to let it go on a voice vote.

Mr. President, before Senator Kyl leaves the floor, I would like to join the Republican leader in congratulating him on his public service. He and I came to the Congress the same year, after the 1986 elections--we are part of the 100th Congress--and we became friends. I couldn't agree more with the Republican leader and his example of following your convictions with the highest degree of integrity in the work you have done. I had a chance to serve with you on the Judiciary Committee, and I can tell you that you added greatly to the respect for that committee and our respect for the process and for the rule of law and for civil liberty issues. And most recently, with the work you did on the Magnitsky bill, the Republican leader

is absolutely right--you did not seek the headlines on that legislation, but it could not have been done without your direction and your help.

I just want to thank you for what you have done to advance the reputation of the Senate and public service, standing by your convictions, yet doing so in a way that we could work together, respecting everyone's right to be heard and our right to work together. You are indeed a model Senator, and it has been an honor to serve with you in the Senate.

Senator Kyl is absolutely right. I get my best information from Myrna as to what is going on in the Senate. So I appreciate his comments.

Hungary

Mr. President, as the Senate chair of the Helsinki Commission, I have a longstanding interest in Central Europe. For many years the Helsinki Commission was one of the loudest and clearest voices to speak on behalf of those oppressed by communism and to call for democracy, human rights, and freedom from Soviet oppression. It has been a great triumph and joy to see the peoples of this region free from dictatorship.

Over the past two decades I have been profoundly heartened as newly freed countries of Central Europe have joined the United States and NATO and have become our partners in advocating for human rights and democracy around the globe. Leadership on those issues may be especially important now as some countries in the Middle East undertake transition, the outcome of which is far from certain. Even in Europe, in the western Balkans, there is a crying need for exemplary leadership, not backsliding.

Americans know from our own history that maintaining democracy and promoting human rights are never jobs that are finished. As my friend and former colleague Tom Lantos said, ``The veneer of civilization is paper thin. We are its guardians, and we can never rest.''

For some time I have been concerned about the trajectory of developments in Hungary, where the scope and nature of systemic changes introduced after April 2010 have been the focus of considerable international attention.

At the end of November, Hungary was back in the headlines when Marton Gyongyosi, a member of the notorious extremist party Jobbik and also vice chairman of the Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, suggested that Hungarian Jews are a threat to Hungary's national security and those in government and Parliament should be registered. The ink was barely dry on letters protesting those comments when another Hungarian member of Parliament, Balazs Lenhardt, participated in a public demonstration last week where he burned an Israeli flag.

The fact is that these are only the latest extremist scandals to erupt in Budapest over the course of this year. In April, for example, just before Passover, a Jobbik MP gave a speech in Parliament weaving together subtle anti-Roma propaganda with overt anti-Semitism blood libel. After that, Jobbik was in the news when it was reported that one of its members in Parliament had requested and received certification from a DNA testing company that his or her blood was free of Jewish or Romani ancestry.

At issue in the face of these anti-Semitic and racist phenomena is the sufficiency of the Hungarian Government's response and its role in ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law. And the government's response has been, to say the least, wanting.

First, it has been a hallmark of this government to focus on blood identity through the extension of Hungarian citizenship on a purely ethnic basis. The same Hungarian officials have played fast and loose with questions relating to its wartime responsibilities, prompting the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to issue a public statement of concern regarding the rehabilitation of fascist ideologues and political leaders from World War II.

I am perhaps most alarmed by the government's failure to stand against the organized threats from Jobbik. For example, in late August a mob estimated at 1,000 people terrorized a Roma neighborhood in Devecser, taunting the Romani families to come out and face the crowd. There were reportedly three members of Parliament from the Jobbik party participating in that mob, and some people were filmed throwing bricks or stones at the Romani homes. The failure to investigate, let alone condemn such acts of intimidation, makes Prime Minister Orban's recent pledge to protect ``his compatriots'' ring hollow.

Of course, all this takes place in the context of fundamental questions about democracy itself in Hungary.

What are we to make of democracy in Hungary when more than 360 religious organizations are stripped of their registration overnight and when all faiths must now depend on the politicized decisionmaking of the Parliament to receive the rights that come with registration?

What are we to make of the fact that even after the European Commission and Hungary's own Constitutional Court have ruled against the mass dismissal of judges in Hungary's court-packing scheme, there is still no remedy for any of the dismissed judges?

What is the status of media freedom in Hungary, let alone the fight against anti-Semitism, if a journalist who writes about anti-Semitism faces possible sanction before the courts for doing so?

What are we to make of Hungary's new election framework, which includes many troubling provisions, including a prohibition on campaign ads on commercial radio and TV, onerous new voter registration provisions, and limits on local election committees, which oversee elections?

I find it hard to imagine that Jews, Roma, and other minorities will be safe if freedom of the media and religion, the rule of law, the independence of the Judiciary, and the checks and balances essential for democracy are not also safeguarded. With that in mind, I will continue to follow the overall trends in Hungary and the implications for the region as a whole.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to congratulate Maryland Legal Services Corporation on their 30th anniversary. Established in 1982 by the Maryland General Assembly, Maryland Legal Services Corporation raises and distributes funds to nonprofit organizations that provide civil legal assistance to low-income persons.

As chairman of Maryland Legal Services Corporation from 1988-1995, I know firsthand the extraordinary service they provide to Marylanders. Maryland Legal Services Corporation's grants have enabled 35 Maryland- area nonprofits to assist individuals in matters such as eviction, foreclosure, domestic violence, child custody, veteran's benefits, and health care. To date, Maryland Legal Services Corporation has awarded more than $164 million in grants, assisting Marylanders in 2 million different legal matters.

In recent years Maryland Legal Services Corporation's mission has become even more critical, as more and more people have turned to our nonprofit community for civil legal services. Studies have shown that poor households will on average face from 1 to 3 legal problems a year, and Maryland is fortunate that Maryland Legal Services Corporation has worked tirelessly to ensure that our nonprofit civil legal service providers can assist its clients.

In the Western part of our State, a couple who were 2 months behind on their mortgage and close to foreclosure was provided a volunteer attorney from Allegany Law Foundation who helped them save their home.

In Harford County, Legal Aid successfully advocated for a woman who was being sued by her credit card company after she had paid thousands of dollars to a debt settlement company believing that the company would pay off her credit card debt. Legal Aid helped her cancel her contract, get a refund and have the lawsuit dismissed.

A man on the Eastern Shore contacted his local Maryland Legal Aid Bureau with concerns about black mold that was growing in his rental unit. The landlord refused to remedy the mold situation, so Legal Aid staff investigated the situation and helped the man escrow his rent.

Had these Marylanders not had access to civil legal assistance, what would have happened? I submit that inevitably justice suffers. Judges are put in the position of trying to provide some assistance and advice--while remaining impartial--to one or two unrepresented parties before them. Social service agencies absorb additional costs from those that are unfairly denied health care or social services benefits. Neighborhoods and communities are damaged due to unjust evictions. Families are torn apart, and domestic violence and abuse continues unabated. Public health and law enforcement costs rise. The rule of law is undermined, and Americans come to believe that justice is only for the rich, not the poor.

According to one study, each Legal Aid attorney serves over 6,800 people, while there is one private attorney for every 525 people in the nation. This is not ``Equal Justice Under Law'', as promised by the etching at the entrance to the United States Supreme Court. I am committed to help close the justice gap by giving the Federal Legal Services Corporation the resources it needs from Congress. This must include increasing its authorized level of funding and removing harmful funding restrictions regarding class action lawsuits and attorneys fees.

Maryland Legal Services Corporation's successes over the last 30 years are impressive, and while we celebrate all they have been able to do, we also recommit ourselves to ensuring that all people have access to quality legal representation, regardless of income.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Janet Jacqueline Emanuel, a fellow in Senator Mark Udall's office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the Senate's session of the 112th Congress.

Mr. President, today I wish to thank and to honor an invaluable member of my Senate team, Michael Burke. As my Maryland projects director, Mike has been the key liaison between the Federal legislative process and the critical institutions of my home State of Maryland. As my top environmental adviser, Mike has been vital to each of my environmental priorities, from climate change to the Chesapeake Bay. Mike is a substantive expert, a keen strategist, a wise counselor, and an attentive mentor and friend to my entire team. He is a diligent public servant who leads quietly, by example, with the strength of his knowledge and skill. As he retires after an exemplary career of service, I am pleased to pay public tribute to this remarkable man.

Mike has devoted much of his career to protecting the natural splendor of Maryland and the Mid-Atlantic, particularly our iconic Chesapeake Bay. Before joining my team, Mike was associate director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay program. There, he dedicated himself to implementing solutions for the bay, which is the world's largest estuary, one of the most important water bodies in the Nation, and a natural resource that all Marylanders treasure. Shortly after I was sworn into the Senate, Mike joined my office as an EPA fellow. He demonstrated an incredible knowledge and understanding of the wide range of issues affecting Maryland, and I knew I needed to hire him as a permanent member of my staff. He brought his passion for the environment to his work in the Senate, skillfully leading efforts on environmental issues from Chesapeake Bay health to clean air, and from climate change to wildlife conservation. I will continue to fight hard for the issues and programs that Mike helped initiate.

Mike knows the ecological importance of the Chesapeake Bay and the impediments harming the bay's ecology because he has seen it all and experienced it firsthand. From Poplar Neck to Elk Neck, from Catoctin Mountain to Calvert Cliffs, from the Nanticoke to the Pocomoke, from Rocky Gorge to Sandy Point, Mike has experienced the natural wonder of our great State. It is his deep appreciation for the importance of protecting our State's natural resources that has made him such a valuable member of my staff.

In addition to his critical environmental work, Mike led my team in charge of instate projects. The key institutions of Maryland's public life our universities, our hospitals, our local governments, and community organizations have benefitted from Mike's expertise in navigating the legislative process and his commitment to fighting on behalf of the people of Maryland.

Mike's substantive knowledge and political acumen extend well beyond the bay and Maryland. His policy expertise led Senator Barbara Boxer, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, to ask me if I would ``lend'' Mike to her committee during the committee's arduous work on both the 2010 climate bill and the 2012 Transportation bill. While his full-time service to my office was missed during those periods, I was pleased to see how much my colleague from California valued Mike's input and skill, and I was happy to see him brought in to help the chairman with these important committee initiatives.

In addition to his wealth of knowledge and strategic skill, Mike will be missed most of all for the warmth, integrity, and generosity of spirit that he brings to every encounter. When he first joined my office, he would occasionally send Maryland trivia questions around to the staff. His enthusiasm helped to broaden my team's--and even my own--knowledge of the great State of Maryland, and endeared him to everyone in the office. No matter how tough the circumstance and here in the Senate, we often face tough days--Mike is quick to declare with a smile that he has ``never had a bad day.'' He has committed himself to mentorship, voluntarily and enthusiastically spending hours working with more junior colleagues, guiding and advising them with a selflessness that is remarkable for being all too rare.

During the years, I am proud to say that I have come to value Mike not just as a staff member, but as a friend. He and his wife Pat have become favorites within the Cardin team, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to acknowledge Pat publicly as well. Her strong commitment to Maryland is evident not only in her own work in children's health care, but in her support of Mike's efforts here in these Halls, and I thank her for her contribution to the people of Maryland.

Mike's knowledge of the environmental issues of the day does not just stem from his professional experience, but also from his personal interest as an avid naturalist, bird watcher, kayaker, and overall lover of the outdoors. Mike is most at home among the natural spaces he treasures, either on the water in a sea kayak or walking along a nature trail. For several years, Mike has shared that passion with the community by writing a column featuring different species of Mid- Atlantic native and migratory birds in the ``Chesapeake Bay Journal.'' As with everything he does, Mike's columns always manage to include some of the quiet wisdom that is uniquely his. In a column about the common song sparrow, a local bird that is often overlooked in favor of those with brighter colors and flashier songs, Mike urges his readers to look beyond the bird's plain exterior to appreciate its unique contribution to the natural community. His words manage to capture something about his own steady, unassuming service to those around him. Mike writes, ``We lead quiet lives until some rare person decides to listen with abiding patience, waiting for us to finally step out from behind protective cover and softly announce our presence. And then anonymity gives way to the individuality that has been there all along.'' For me, for my team, Mike has always been both the quiet presence and the patient listener, working with steady determination for the people of Maryland. As he looks forward to a retirement filled with relaxation and the outdoor recreation that he loves, I am humbly grateful for his service. He will be missed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I join with Senator Hutchison in paying tribute to Senator Daniel K. Inouye.

I rise to pay tribute to our dear colleague. Senator Inouye was not one of the tallest Senators; in fact, he had a slight build and a quiet demeanor. But he was a giant. He will be missed by all in the Senate. The people of his beloved Hawaii will miss him. All Americans will miss him.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Senator Inouye was declared an enemy alien because of his Japanese ancestry. But in 1943, when the U.S. Army dropped its enlistment ban on Japanese Americans, he enlisted in the Army and volunteered to be part of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team.

The 442nd became the most highly decorated infantry regiment in the history of the U.S. Army. The 442nd, known by its motto, ``Go for Broke,'' was awarded eight Presidential Unit Citations and 21 of its members, including Senator Inouye, were awarded the Medal of Honor for their heroism during World War II.

Following World War II, Senator Inouye finished his undergraduate studies at the University of Hawaii and then earned a law degree from George Washington University. In 1953, he was elected to the Hawaii Territorial House of Representatives and was immediately elected majority leader. He served two terms there and was elected to the Hawaii Territorial Senate in 1957. Midway through his first term in the Territorial Senate, Hawaii achieved statehood. He won a seat in the House of Representatives as Hawaii's first full Member and took office on August 21, 1959, the same date Hawaii became a State, and he was reelected in 1960.

Then, in 1962, he was elected to the Senate and was reelected eight times, only once with less than 69 percent of the vote. Senator Inouye had been in the Congress since Hawaii became a State. He was the second longest serving Senator in our Nation's history, and he served with distinction, just as he served with distinction in the U.S. Army.

Others on this floor have already detailed his bravery in battle, his service on the Watergate and Iran-Contra Committees and his accomplishments as the first chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and as chairman of the Commerce and Appropriations Committees. I would like to highlight his work on behalf of the victims of racial and economic and social inequality and his commitment to making the Senate operate as the Founding Fathers envisioned.

A statement on Senator Inouye's Web site says: ``Dan Inouye was always among the first to speak out against injustice whether interned Japanese Americans, Filipino World War II veterans, Native Americans and Native Hawaiians.'' How true.

A few hundred yards from this Chamber is the Smithsonian's magnificent National Museum of the American Indian. Senator Inouye introduced the legislation to create that museum and fought for Native American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander recognition and rights and restitution as chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

In the Senate, Senator Inouye treated all his colleagues with respect and courtesy and always reached across the aisle to forge bipartisan solutions to our Nation's biggest challenges. His friendship with former Republican leader Bob Dole, whom he met while the two of them were recuperating from grievous combat injuries--along with, I might say, another wounded veteran who became a giant in the Senate, Senator Philip Hart of Michigan--serves as an example we should strive to emulate. He was a member of the so-called Gang of 14, again reaching across the aisle at a time when partisan tempers were particularly high.

There are few--if any--Americans who have been more heroic in battle, more accomplished as a public servant, more dedicated to family and country and humanity than Daniel K. Inouye. Yet he was also one of the most humble and self-effacing people. What a tremendous example of a life well lived he has left for all of us as we mourn his death, celebrate his life, and give thanks for his service to the people of Hawaii, the Senate, and the United States of America.

To Senator Inouye we say aloha.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, first let me thank Chairman Leahy for those words in his exchange with Senator Durbin. I wish to offer my deepest condolences on behalf of all of the people of Maryland to the 20 students who lost their lives, and the 6 adults, at the hands of a single shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

It is heart-breaking to listen to the stories of innocent lives cut cruelly short. The pain and grief of the families and friends of these students and teachers is unimaginable.

I want to echo some of the comments Senator Durbin and Senator Leahy made. We know the teachers and the aides put their lives on the line in order to try to save the children, as well as the unbelievable task of the first responders coming to the scene and not knowing what they would find. We send our prayers to all.

This is a tragedy beyond words. I think President Obama said it best last night that our hearts are broken. But as Senator Durbin has said-- and I say to Senator Leahy, I particularly want to thank the Senator-- we need to take action. Congress needs to come together and take action to protect the safety of our children. We must do better. There have been too many episodes in which children's lives--and others--have been lost that we must figure out ways to prevent these types of tragedies.

This conversation must include a discussion about the culture of violence that permeates our culture today, including the glorification of violence to our children and young adults. We see too much of this violence, and it has to have an impact on young children. We need to know how we can responsibly deal with this circumstance.

It must include a discussion of the mental health services provided to Americans, including our students. Many of us have talked about this in the past. We have to be more aggressive in dealing with the mental health needs of all the people in our community.

As Chairman Leahy pointed out, we must discuss the issue about the ready access of individuals to weapons. I know there are different views in this Congress. I must tell you, I do not understand why we need to allow access to military-style assault weapons and ammunition.

I strongly support Senator Feinstein's efforts to reinstate the expired 1994 ban on assault weapons, including a ban on ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Senator Durbin has raised a very valid point: We regulate automobiles. We regulate consumer products. We regulate a lot, as we should, for public safety, and we should regulate firearms for public safety reasons.

There is no need for assault weapons to be held by the public. In my view, there is no legitimate reason for a civilian to possess a military-style weapon or to have large capacity ammunition clips. Congress should also examine whether we can strengthen our background check system for gun buyers, along with criminal penalties for those who illegally purchase or transfer guns.

We need to take a look at safety locks for children. We need to look at those who make multiple purchases. We need to look at the gun show purchases. I think we should examine all those to see whether we can make our communities safer, without infringing upon the legitimate right of individuals to possess guns, sportsmen to be able to use guns for hunting. I think all that, obviously, will be protected. But we can do a much better job of protecting public safety.

We have talked about this before, and we need to act. We need to act in a comprehensive way to make our society safer. I pledge to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--I have had the honor of serving on that committee for 4 years. He is an extremely fair leader who believes in letting all sides be heard, and I very much appreciate his commitment in so many different areas that have dealt with public safety. We have great confidence in his leadership on that committee, and other committees of the Senate need to act as it relates to the safety of our children.

(Mr. BEGICH assumed the chair.)

Mr. President, I know we have pending the supplemental appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to act on this as quickly as we can. Sandy was a devastating storm. Eight million people were without power. There were over 100 deaths, including 7 in the State of Maryland.

Maryland was hit hard, not as hard as New Jersey or New York--and our prayers go out to all the communities that have been affected--but Maryland was hit pretty hard. We had sustained winds for hour after hour after hour after hour. We had rainfall records--9 inches. We had storm surges with 7 foot waves. We had flooding of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. We had a storm in the western part of our State that dropped 30 inches of wet snow.

So we suffered from the flooding on the Eastern Shore and the storms in western Maryland. In many of the communities, people who live below the poverty line are elderly. Senator Mikulski was just on the floor and talked about the circumstances in the city of Crisfield. In that city, 32 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Mr. President, 585 homes were severely damaged, 71 sustained major damage. The watermen, which is one of the major industries for that community, found that they were literally unable to work, and they are still unclear as to what is going to happen to their crops.

We have a serious problem. I will give you just two examples of people who have lived through this storm.

In Crisfield, Mary lived in an apartment with Cody, her trained medical dog. Mary suffers from epileptic seizures, and Cody serves as her lifeline when these seizures occur.

Mary has no family in the area. She cannot work due to her disability. Her only source of income is a small Social Security check.

When Hurricane Sandy hit Crisfield, the water rose rapidly in her apartment. Mary was forced to grab Cody--and nothing else--jump out the window and swim to safety. She lost all her belongings, including all her records, which might be helpful for her to be able to get the benefits she is entitled to.

She is now in temporary housing at a local motel, paying $60 a night, which she cannot afford, until she can qualify for the assistance. In an area that has a high number of low-income elderly persons, Federal assistance is needed to help deserving senior citizens severely impacted by this storm.

Then there is Diane, who also lives in Crisfield with her family in her childhood home. According to Diane, she has weathered many storms over the years but never in her lifetime has she ever seen the water rise so high and so quickly, inundating the first floor of her home and creating huge whitecaps around her neighborhood. Diane decided to ride out the storm in her home, fearing the possibility of drowning if she left.

The family lost all their possessions. With housing vouchers, they are now

living in temporary housing. A church group gutted her home, but she still needs building materials in order to be able to rebuild her home. She does not have the resources to do that. She needs Federal assistance in order to get her life back in order.

They are just two stories, and I could give you numerous others in the State of Maryland. In the western part of our State, in Garrett County--Garrett County is a community of 30,000--15,000 homes were without power. That is just about every home. Trees fell everywhere. This is a remote Appalachian community, where people were isolated because of the storm. They need help. They need partners.

I wish to congratulate Governor O'Malley and our State leaders and our county leaders. FEMA did a great job. I want to thank the Red Cross and other private sector groups.

But now it is time for the Federal Government to act as a true partner.

I thank President Obama for the disaster declaration for our State, including individual relief for the County of Somerset. This legislation strengthens the Federal partnership. It provides the resources so we can help people such as Mary and Diane who have been devastated by the storm. It will provide the resources necessary so they can put their lives back together. I particularly note the $17 billion in CDBG funds. Those are flexible funds that will help people such as Mary and Diane so they can get their lives back together.

I also wish to point out how important the mitigation funds are that are in the supplemental appropriations bill. That will allow us to build to prevent this type of damage in the future. For those who may question the feasibility of this type of investment, let me point to one in Maryland: Assateague Island. We widened and put more beach down on Assateague Island. It was kind of pricey, many people thought, but it acted as a buffer for Sandy coming in and causing more damage in Ocean City. Literally millions of dollars were saved because of Assateague Island acting as a bumper to the storm. Mitigation is important, and we should invest in mitigation.

The next step should be the passage of the supplemental appropriations bill. I have heard many of my colleagues come to the floor who represent States that are directly affected. I have listened as my colleagues around the Nation have talked about disasters in their communities, and we have always come together as a nation. I know we are in the last days of this legislative session. I just urge my colleagues to let us move this bill forward now. Let's get it done so the Federal Government can be there to help the communities that have been affected by this storm. It is the right thing to do, and I hope my colleagues will support that effort.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in recognition of International Human Rights Day. Sixty-four years ago this past Monday, on December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration enunciates a doctrine that serves as a foundation for human rights initiatives internationally and as an enduring guide for human rights advocates around the globe.

On this annual celebration of International Human Rights Day, human rights defenders, champions of democracy, promoters of civil rights, and advocates of free speech across the globe can also be encouraged by Congress's recent passage of landmark human rights legislation. Last week, the Senate passed the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which the House passed in September in conjunction with approving permanent normal trade relations for Russia.

The Magnitsky Act was inspired by the tragic case of Sergei Magnitsky, a 37-year-old Russian lawyer who uncovered massive corruption in Russia and then was arrested for his whistleblowing. Magnitsky died in 2009 after suffering torturous conditions in pretrial detention. Those implicated in the corruption Magnitsky exposed and those responsible for his torture and death have not been brought to justice, and some have even been decorated and promoted. The Magnitsky Act goes beyond the specific violators in this case to prohibit all gross violators of human rights in Russia from traveling to the United States and from using our financial system.

President Obama is now poised to reaffirm our Nation's commitment to universal human rights by signing the Magnitsky Act into law. With the stroke of a pen, the President will set a new global standard that other nations are sure to follow. The act sets a precedent that can be applied to human rights abusers around the world, and I am committed to working with my colleagues in the next Congress to apply the Magnitsky sanctions globally. Human rights violators from Kinshasa to Beijing are now on notice that the United States stands in solidarity with those whose rights are trampled and will deny the legitimizing privileges of travelling to our country and accessing our financial system to those who violate fundamental freedoms.

The United States remains the global leader in promoting and protecting human rights, but we need to do more. We need to ensure that women across the world have the liberty to determine the course and scope of their own lives and futures and that they have the tools to achieve their full potential. The horrific and cowardly attempt by assassins to silence the brave leadership of 15-year-old Malala Yousufzai must not be left unchallenged. We must take up her cause--the education of girls and women--and support both that goal and its advocates, and we must redouble our efforts to protect the rights of ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities, from the Christians in Egypt to the Roma population in Europe.

As the legendary Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel has said, ``Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must--at that moment--become the center of the universe.'' This International Human Rights Day, the U.S. Congress sends a strong message to human rights defenders around the world that we stand in solidarity with them as they dare to stand up to injustice and oppression.

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

Mr. President, I take this time to share the views of many people who I have talked to in Maryland, and I am sure the same has been said in Oregon and around the Nation. People are frustrated by the inability of Congress to come together on solving the so-called fiscal cliff. We understand this needs to be avoided. Going off the fiscal cliff could cause major damage to our economy.

If we take no action by January 1, as I am sure most people are now aware, tax rates will revert back to the pre-Bush tax rates. The alternative minimum tax that shields tens of millions of Americans from paying extra income taxes will expire and tens of millions of Americans will be subject to extra taxes. The unemployment insurance program, the extended benefit program, will come to a halt. The payroll tax holiday will end, and individuals' take-home pay will be reduced. We would have a serious problem on Medicare reimbursement to our physicians. They would be subjected to a significant cut, close to 30 percent, which would have an impact on seniors and our disabled population having access to physician care, and we would go through what is known as sequestration, which is across-the-board cuts to almost all Federal programs, ranging from 8 percent to about 10 percent. That would have a major impact on our entire country. We have looked at the numbers in Maryland, and it could mean as many as 60,000 jobs lost in our own State of Maryland. We have a large Federal workforce, with 5.6 percent of our workers working for the Federal Government. That type of across- the-board cut would have an incredibly negative impact on the people of Maryland and throughout the entire country.

We have to avoid that. The impact on our economy is estimated to be about 3 percent. We would go from a positive growth to a negative growth, throwing us into a recession. I understand the

frustration of why so close to the end of the year we haven't resolved these issues. We should have resolved them. We should come together, work together to get it done. But I want to point out to the people I represent in Maryland and to the people of this Nation that we have to get this done right. There is a lot at stake.

We have to make sure our country can grow, that we can create the jobs we need to be competitive in the future. We must make sure we deal with this budget crisis in a way that allows us to invest in education, in job training and in rebuilding our highways, our bridges, and our energy grids. We have to make sure we can compete as a nation. That is why so many of us have said we have to have a balanced approach to dealing with the fiscal cliff.

This morning, I listened to Speaker Boehner say the ball is in the President's court. I couldn't disagree more with the Speaker of the House. I think it is important to point out that since we have been working on trying to deal with this deficit issue, we have already agreed to over $1 trillion in spending cuts--in discretionary domestic spending--in some of the most challenging areas that affect our most vulnerable people. We have implemented that, and this is since the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission came out. We took action and we imposed caps on discretionary domestic spending.

Our Federal workforce has been through years, a couple years of pay freezes. We have seen programs that have been cut back and the support they give to people who need help. We have already contributed on the spending side. Is it enough? No. Do we need to do more? Absolutely. But we have done that.

The next piece that must be done is the revenue piece. We can't have a balanced approach unless we have the revenues. So many of my colleagues have talked about this. Historically, our revenues are around 20 percent of our economy. They are now in the 15-percent range.

We have a way to do this. The Senate has come together on a way to do this. The Senate passed legislation that has been in the House of Representatives where Speaker Boehner is the Speaker of the House. It has been in the House now for months. What that legislation does, first, it gives predictability to the taxpayers of this country. It says the first $250,000 of taxable income will be subject to the current tax rates and will not go back to the pre-Bush tax rates. That gives certainty to the taxpayers in this country.

I have heard people say: That affects 98 percent of the taxpayers in this country. You know what. It affects 100 percent of the taxpayers of this country. I wish to stress that. If we pass the bill that was sent by the Senate to the House that continues in January the current tax rates for those with taxable incomes up to $250,000; yes, for the typical taxpayer in Baltimore City earning $20,000 to $30,000 of income, they will save $1,400 in taxes; and, yes, for a taxpayer earning $40,000 to $65,000 of taxable income, they will save $2,000. But guess what. A person with $250,000 of taxable income will save about $7,000; and if they earn $500,000 in taxable income, they will save that same $7,000. If they earn $1 million of taxable income, they will get that tax break also. It affects 100 percent of the taxpayers of this country.

What we are saying is we have to have some revenue in this equation. We understand that. Those who are the most well off, do they truly deserve larger tax breaks than that? I would suggest not.

It is not just the tax rates we sent over to the House of Representatives, we also corrected the marriage penalty so that wouldn't change on January 1, the child tax credit, and the AMT--the alternative minimum tax I mentioned earlier. As to the alternative minimum tax, if we don't correct that, tens of millions of Americans will pay extra taxes in the thousands of dollars starting January 1.

I have heard many debates on the floor of the Senate and in the House where no one wants that to happen. Then pass the bill we sent over from the Senate. If we do that, taxpayers don't have to worry about those rates going up and it gives them a little bit of confidence, hopefully, before Christmas, which would make the season a happier season for all.

This is a balanced approach. As I said before, we started with spending cuts. We have done that. The next step, Speaker Boehner has to deal with the revenue side. If the House passes the Senate bill, it provides about $850 billion in revenue from not extending additional tax relief for those whose incomes are above $250,000. I mentioned we already did over $1 trillion of discretionary domestic spending cuts, which would give us $850 billion of revenue, and that is not enough. We are going to need more revenue. It is not going to be easy to find. But by closing loopholes, we can get some additional revenues. We have all talked about tax reform. We can get some additional revenue from tax reform.

That brings us to additional savings, and we agree we can get additional savings. I have taken to the floor and talked about the fact that we are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. I applaud the efforts of the chair to try to get those troops home sooner, and I agree with him. But our troops are coming home and our baseline budget reflects a much higher Active troop level than we need. It is called the overseas contingency accounts. We know there are savings there that can be achieved and we can use in that balanced approach to bring our budget under better control.

Just as we have gone through base realignment and closures in the United States, we believe we can do that throughout the world and that can also save us some money in the military budget. So there are military savings that can be achieved.

Yes, we can and must achieve savings on the entitlement side. I was listening to my friend from Iowa talking about the cost of health care. I agree with him. Health care costs have gone up too dramatically in this country. We have to bring down the cost of health care. We started doing that with the Affordable Care Act by investing in prevention-- preventing readmissions to hospitals and dealing with high-cost interventions. That will help us bring down the cost of health care. We have to do more in that regard. If we bring down the cost of health care, we save money in Medicare and Medicaid, and we save taxpayer costs, but we also help our economy. What a lot of us are concerned about is just trying to shift the cost to beneficiaries. That doesn't help our economy and that doesn't help solve the problem.

I take the floor now just to challenge Speaker Boehner and say to him it is time to act on the bill we sent over months ago. Let us take the next step and let us work together and develop a framework so our committees can work and achieve policy changes that can bring in the additional revenues we are going to need and the additional savings we know we can achieve. We can do that working together.

I started by saying there are many people in our communities who are frustrated we haven't gotten this done by now. I share that frustration. We should have gotten this done a long time ago. I agree with them. But let's now move this week with the House passing the Senate bill we sent them providing predictability for the taxpayers of this country going into this holiday season. Let's reassure them that next year their rates will not be increased, particularly in this fragile economy. Let's set up a framework where we can responsibly work to reduce health care costs--in greater amounts, I agree--reduce some military spending, and do what is right in a real balanced approach to get our budget in better balance so our economy will grow and create the jobs we need.

It is most important for us to have a climate where we can create more jobs and the type of jobs we want--invest in education, construction, et cetera. That is what we need to do. That is where we need to come together as Democrats and Republicans to get the job done. I urge my colleagues, let's work and get this done as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 4 p.m., with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague from Utah is on the floor, so I yield the floor and look forward to listening to his comments.

I couldn't agree more with my friend from Oregon. As some of my colleagues know, I am the original sponsor of Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, the standalone bill that then became the human rights title in this combined PNTR bill. I am enormously proud of the work we have done on the bill, and I

think it has real potential to not only hold people accountable who have committed past human rights abuses, but also potentially to prevent future human rights abuses from occurring. Those who are responsible for gross human rights abuses such as torture or extrajudicial killings, whether as private citizens or within organs of the State, now know that we, our markets, and our financial system will remain closed to them if they do so. These are real material consequences.

That is exactly right. Those who violate the human rights of such citizens through torture, extrajudicial killings, or other gross violations of international human rights will come to our attention. And I look forward to working with my friend from Oregon to help maintain this vigilance and oversight in the years to come.