Floor Statements

Mr. President, John Kerry is a valued colleague and a loyal friend, and we will miss him in the Senate. But at a time when our Nation faces complex and difficult challenges around the globe, he is especially well qualified to serve as Secretary of State, and I strongly support his confirmation.

Unquestionably, Iran is at the top of the list of challenges the next Secretary of State will face. Senator Kerry has supported efforts in the Senate, including sanctions language included in the defense authorization acts for 2012 and 2013, that have helped isolate the Iranian regime. At his confirmation hearing, Senator Kerry succinctly stated the Obama administration's policy on Iran:

We will do what we must do to prevent Iran from obtaining a

nuclear weapon and I repeat here today: Our policy is not

containment, it is prevention and the clock is ticking on our

efforts to secure responsible compliance.

Senator Kerry will be an effective and dedicated executor of that policy as we unify the international community in our efforts to prevent the Iranian government from developing nuclear weapons.

Another significant challenge for our foreign policy is the volatile Afghanistan-Pakistan region. Here again, Senator Kerry's unique qualifications will serve our Nation well. He strongly supports the plan for transitioning the security lead to Afghan forces so they can provide for their own security. He has established a critical relationship with President Karzai that will strengthen our bilateral relations as we define the enduring strategic relationship between the United States and Afghanistan for post-2014. Senator Kerry understands the importance of negotiating a bilateral security agreement that provides our troops the necessary protections, including legal immunity, for a limited force to continue to train, advise and assist the Afghan forces and conduct counterterrorism operations after 2014. Senator Kerry also has significant experience engaging with Pakistan, which remains key to efforts to establish security and stability in South Asia. Through the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act and other efforts, Kerry has led efforts to strengthen civilian institutions in Pakistan and to reset our bilateral relations.

Senator Kerry also recognizes, as he said during his confirmation hearing, that ``[m]ore than ever, foreign policy is economic policy.'' Those words will hearten working families in my State and across the Nation whose well-being is increasingly connected to our economic competitiveness around the world, our ability to engage with other nations to ensure that our companies and workers have the opportunity to compete in the global marketplace on an equal footing, and our recognition that economic competition today is

not just among companies, but also among the countries that support their companies and workers. I look forward to working with Senator Kerry as we bring all the levers of American policy to bear on this issue of paramount importance to American prosperity.

Another issue on which I look forward to cooperating with Senator Kerry is our policy toward Cuba. Senator Kerry and I have similar voting records on United States policy towards Cuba. We also both recognize the need for policy that places maximum pressure on the Cuban regime to democratize. However, our voting records maintain that our Cuba policy is counter-productive in promoting change in Cuba. I look forward to working with Senator Kerry to rebalance our approach to Cuba as we look forward to a new era in that nation's history and its relations with us.

Throughout his public career, John Kerry has proven his dedication not just to America's interests, but to its values. Indeed, he recognizes that our ability to defend our interests around the world depends on adherence to the values that make the United States a beacon of freedom and opportunity. He has spoken with eloquence about the need to combat violence and extremism around the world not just with our military might, but with the power of our ideas. As he said in his confirmation hearing, ``America lives up to her values when we give voice to the voiceless.'' His commitment to aiding those around the world whose lives have been shattered by war, repression or disaster is in keeping with those values.

Senator Kerry knows personally the cost of war and the value of peace. He knows the difficulty of the challenges we face, and the importance of American leadership in facing those challenges-- leadership important not just to our Nation's security and prosperity, but to the world's. He has been an outstanding servant of the American people, and I am confident he will continue that record of extraordinary service as our next Secretary of State.

Madam President, public service is a noble endeavor, and there are many individuals across our great nation that dedicate their lives to making our communities better and function smoothly. I am pleased today to recognize the illustrious career of one such public servant, a talented and well-respected judge from my home State of Michigan. Elizabeth A. Hacker's legal career has spanned more than three decades, and her tenure on the bench has been defined by her sound judgment, wisdom, and expansive knowledge of the law.

Judge Hacker is retiring from the Federal bench after 32 years of distinguished service to the Detroit Immigration court and to the U.S. Department of Justice. Her family, friends, and colleagues from the court and the Michigan bar gathered this past weekend to celebrate this milestone and to honor her distinguished career. I am delighted to honor her impressive record of public service to our Nation,

the Justice Department, the City of Detroit and our great State of Michigan.

Elizabeth Hacker is a proud daughter of Detroit. She received her B.A. from Wayne State University in 1974 and a law degree from the Detroit College of Law in 1978. Following a brief period in private practice, Judge Hacker joined the Detroit office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1980. She rose quickly within the INS, serving as a naturalization attorney; a trial attorney; a chief attorney; and finally assistant regional counsel for the western region for three immigration districts, including Los Angeles, where she supervised dozens of other immigration attorneys.

Elizabeth Hacker is currently the senior United States immigration judge for the Immigration Court with jurisdiction over Michigan, Ohio, and northern Kentucky. Notably, Judge Hacker re-established the Detroit Immigration Court when she was appointed to the bench in July of 1995.

While affiliated with the Immigration Service, Judge Hacker acted as an instructor at both Federal law enforcement training academies, teaching a range of subjects, including the law of arrest, search and seizure, employer sanctions and general immigration law.

During her long tenure on the Detroit Immigration Court, Judge Hacker handled numerous noteworthy and high-profile cases, many of which were covered extensively by the news media. Of particular note was the role she played in the deportation of Nazi war criminals that were discovered residing in the United States living under false pretenses.

In 2011, Judge Hacker wrote the opinion in the trial of Ivan Kalymon for his participation in Nazi-sponsored acts of persecution while serving as an armed member of the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police during World War II. Hacker ordered Kalymon deported.

In the months following the attacks of September 2001, Judge Hacker handled several cases involving terrorists and terrorist organizations plotting in the United States. Many high-stakes cases came before her court. Her colleagues on immigration courts across the country came to rely on her expertise and experience. They would frequently solicit her opinion on complex matters involving national security.

Her colleague on the bench, Judge Marsha Nettles, describes Judge Hacker as someone who ensured that everyone who came before her ``received a full, fair and complete hearing. She never forgot the mission of the Immigration Service or the Court. She always put the mission first, no matter the public pressure or media scrutiny.''

By all accounts, Judge Hacker is looking forward to her retirement and to spending more time on Grosse Ile with her loving husband Brian Munson and doing more cooking, which outside of the law, is her true life's passion.

Judge Hacker is a trailblazer. Through her tireless dedication, sense of purpose and unfailing fidelity to the mission of the Justice Department and the court, Elizabeth Hacker has set a high standard. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Elizabeth Hacker as she concludes her long and distinguished legal career.

Mr. President, Hurricane Sandy was one of the costliest storms in our Nation's history, resulting in at least 125 deaths, the destruction of tens

of thousands of homes and businesses, electricity losses for millions of people, disruption of fuel supplies, and devastating damage to public infrastructure. When Hurricane Sandy struck land on October 29, hurricane-force winds covered 900 miles, wreaking havoc across a broad stretch of the Eastern seaboard. While the impact of Hurricane Sandy was most severe in New Jersey and New York, the storm impacted 24 States, including Michigan. Across the Great Lakes, gale force winds caused damage to breakwaters and silted in harbors and channels. On Lake Huron, wave heights reached 23 feet, in Lake Michigan the waves peaked at 22 feet, and the storm caused waves of 14 feet in Lake Erie.

The supplemental appropriations bill before us today includes $821 million for necessary expenses related to Hurricane Sandy to dredge Federal navigation channels and repair damage to Corps projects. Great Lakes channels, harbors, breakwaters, and piers were damaged by gale-force winds caused by Hurricane Sandy. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates damage to the Great Lakes System of $17 million, including in my State of Michigan. This system transports over 160 million tons of commodities and hundreds of thousands of jobs are tied to the system. It is vital that repairs be made promptly. Madam Chairwoman, will these Great Lakes navigational projects damaged by Hurricane Sandy be eligible for some of the $821 million in funding?

I thank the Senator for her assurances.

Mr. President, I will vote in support of the disaster assistance bill to aid the victims of Hurricane Sandy, who number in the millions. Hurricane Sandy covered over 900 miles, took over 125 lives, destroyed homes and businesses, demolished breakwaters, piers, boardwalks, and other infrastructure, and left millions without transportation. This superstorm occurred nearly 3 months ago, and assistance is long past due for the victims who remain homeless and communities trying to rebuild.

Hurricane Sandy left such far-reaching devastation that its destruction reached into the Great Lakes. Gale force winds across the Great Lakes caused damage to breakwaters and silted in harbors and channels. The bill before us provides $821 million to dredge Federal navigation channels and repair damage to Corps projects impacted by Hurricane Sandy. I entered into a colloquy with Chairwoman Mikulski to ensure that the damage incurred to Great Lakes harbors as a result of Hurricane Sandy would be eligible for that funding. I thank Senator Mikulski for clarifying that funding could go to the Great Lakes, and I hope the Corps will prioritize funding for those Great Lakes projects, which are estimated to require about $17 million in repairs.

We have a responsibility to help our fellow Americans who have lost homes and businesses through no fault of their own, and I hope we will pass this bill and immediately send it to the President for his signature. Hurricane Sandy is estimated to be the second or third most costly disaster in U.S. history. We need to provide the assistance promptly to those affected by Hurricane Sandy.

Mr. President, first, let me thank my dear friend from Arizona for helping to lead this bipartisan effort, where eight of us spent weeks to

try to come up with a bipartisan proposal to our leaders. Senator Cardin was one of the eight, and I am grateful to him and to all the eight Members, including one who has now left, Senator Kyl.

Its purpose was twofold. The first purpose was to address the specific hurdles that have created gridlock, the specific mechanisms which have been overused in this Senate that have led to gridlock. There are a number of things that have led to gridlock, but the most significant problem we have faced is the excessive use of the threat of the filibuster on the motion to proceed to a bill.

The reason it was used--according to many Members of the minority-- was because of a fear that the tree would be filled by the majority leader and then there would be no opportunity to offer amendments. So what the eight of us strived to do was to find a balance where we could protect the minority's rights to offer some amendments at the same time that we finally got rid of a roadblock which was being abused, which was a threat to filibuster a motion to proceed. So we devised this approach which is now part of the leadership proposal to do exactly that.

The other purpose is the one which my friend from Arizona has just identified; that if we could come together, the eight of us, four Democrats and four Republicans--Senator Schumer is now on the floor and he was one of the eight. If we could come together and come up with a bipartisan proposal on this issue, we could hopefully begin to change the dynamic that has so divided this Senate. That is, hopefully, a very important and, I hope, successful outcome of those discussions and of the leadership then coming together, because those two leaders have to come together if this Senate is to come together and be able to move legislation in the ordinary course.

I agree with Senator McCain's assessment as to the second goal we had, which was to show that on the thorniest procedural issue we face, that four Democrats and four Republicans, meeting in a very thorough and personal way, without a lot of staff around, could find a way through this procedural thicket and then make recommendations to the majority and to the Republican leader. I do agree with the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, first of all, let me comment on what Senator Cardin said about one of the purposes of this effort, which is to get a bill to the floor so the managers can work on it.

As we have proven in the last couple of months on a number of bills, and the Senator has pointed this out, if we can get the bill to the floor for the managers to be able to work with our colleagues on amendments, we can legislate. The problem has been that we have not been able to get bills to the floor because of this blockage, the blockage caused by the overuse of the filibuster and, more accurately, the threat of a filibuster on the motion to proceed, which, in turn-- and my Republican friends believe this very keenly--was caused by the use of filling the tree, which meant that they would not have the opportunity to offer amendments. So they would then use that threat of a filibuster in order to try to gain assurance that they would be able to offer some amendments.

That is the heart of the compromise we proposed. There are a lot of other aspects to it, including trying to get rid of these filibusters on going to conference; including these filibusters that tied up nominations with postcloture 30-hours, nominations that were going to pass with votes of 90 to 0.

There are a lot of other parts to the recommendations and what the leaders are recommending to us, but the key thing--and Senator Reid said it to us repeatedly--the key thing that this compromise addresses, and it is a bipartisan approach, is trying to overcome that barrier to getting legislation to the floor. We know--the Senator from Maryland has pointed out and Senator McCain knows it because we have lived it-- if you can get a bill to the floor with managers, they can work out amendments, sometimes by the hundreds.

I think Senator McCain and I probably had over 100 amendments filed to our bill.

OK. I am glad I exaggerated in the downward direction. In any event, we were able not to work through all of them but to deal with that challenge, to probably deal with about 100 of them, as I remember. We did it in about 3 days.

That doesn't mean we are magicians. It means we are capable, all of us are capable, if we can get the bill to the floor. Particularly when the bill has come out of committee with broad bipartisan support, we can get bills passed here. So the heart of what we have proposed to the leadership, this group of 8, and what they have adopted and incorporated in their bipartisan approach to the Senate and to the country, is exactly what Senator Cardin has talked about: getting bills to the floor. We can then watch the momentum work.

I want to add one other thing. Senator McCain just made reference to it. That has to do with the so-called nuclear option, or the constitutional option, depending on what your view of it is. I have always believed the threat of that option was troublesome. I was troubled by it because it is inconsistent with the rules of the Senate which require a two-thirds vote for amendments to the rules and because we are a continuing body, not just by our rules but by even a Supreme Court opinion which so ruled.

I believe if the constitutional or the nuclear option were utilized here, if we ended up with the utilization of that option, that what we now have, which is gridlock, would have resulted instead in a meltdown. I want to remind my Democratic friends and folks around the country that not too many years ago when the Republicans threatened to use a constitutional option, the reaction on this side of the aisle was intense. The words of Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator Byrd resonated through this Chamber in strong opposition to the use of a nuclear option.

I have just a few examples of what our reaction was on this side of the aisle when there was a threat to use the nuclear option when it was threatened relative to judges. What I am not going to do tonight is go through the history of the constitutional or the nuclear option, what happened over the century when it has been threatened, how it has not been adopted by the Senate. It is a long, detailed history.

I know some of my colleagues have argued that the constitutional option is based on the Constitution. It is very much the opposite in terms of the history of this Chamber and the rejection of any idea that the Constitution somehow requires that at the beginning of a session of a Senate that rules can be amended by majority vote. It is a long history.

I want to just quote, if I can find these quotes, what the reaction was on this side of the aisle when there was a threat on the Republican side of the aisle to use this approach of getting a ruling from the Chair, somehow, that the rules, although they say they can only be amended by two-thirds, can in fact be amended by a majority.

Mr. President, while I am looking for these quotes, let me ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended until 7 p.m. today and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Our proposal was born out of the sincere belief that, even in today's hyper-partisan environment, it is still possible for Senators from both parties to work together to restore the deliberative traditions for which the Senate was once known. It took many days of discussions over two months among our group to reach an agreement we could present to our Leaders. We looked past our frustrations with the recent practices of the Senate and acted together for the sake of this vital institution. I would also like to thank our former and current Parliamentarians, Alan Frumin and Elizabeth MacDonough, who answered our questions and provided their expert advice throughout our discussions.

Perhaps the most significant reform in the bipartisan leadership proposal, as in our bipartisan proposal to the leadership, is a reform designed to end the abuse of the threat of a filibuster on the motion to proceed to a bill--that is, the abuse of the Senate's minority protections to obstruct the Senate from even taking up and debating legislation. Reform in this area is vital, because abuse of the rules on the motion to proceed has prevented the Senate from engaging in what our rules are supposed to promote: Debate of the important issues our nation must face. Over the previous two Congresses, we have had to hold 59 cloture votes on motions to proceed, and the very threat of the filibuster on the motion to proceed has on countless occasions derailed the Senate's legislative process. Reforming the procedures regarding the motion to proceed will allow this body to deliberate as it is intended to do.

The proposal before us will give the majority leader two alternatives to the method in the existing rules for proceeding to a bill. The first alternative, in the form of a standing order effective for the 113th Congress, would limit debate on the motion to proceed to 4 hours. When used by the majority leader, this alternative would guarantee consideration of some minority amendments. Specifically, two amendments each for both the majority and the minority would be the first amendments in order at the beginning of consideration of a measure. The order of those amendments would be the first minority amendment, the first majority amendment, the second minority amendment, and the second majority amendment. Each amendment would need to be disposed of prior to the offering of the next amendment in order. These amendments would not be subject to amendment or division, and if adopted, the amendments would be considered original text for purpose of further amendment. They could be tabled or filibustered. If an amendment is not offered in its designated order, the right to offer that amendment would be forfeited. Filing deadlines would occur on these amendments if a cloture motion is filed. If cloture is invoked, any of these amendments not offered prior to the expiration of post-cloture time could be offered and would be guaranteed up to 1 hour of debate.

The second alternative would allow the Senate to move quickly when both the majority and minority leaders agree we should proceed to a matter. Specifically, where eight Senators from each side, including the two Leaders, sign a cloture petition on the motion to proceed to a measure, then the cloture vote would occur the day following the filing of the motion with no post-cloture debate if cloture is invoked.

The bipartisan proposal before us would also reform the process of going to conference by collapsing the three motions currently required by the rules to be adopted in order to go to conference into a single motion and shrinking the cloture process on that conference motion from 30 to 2 hours. This change would be in the form of an amendment to the Standing Rules, and was part of our bipartisan group's recommendations to the leaders.

In addition, the proposal before us would reform the consideration of nominations. First, for district court nominations, it would reduce post-cloture time from 30 to 2 hours, as recommended by our bipartisan group of eight. Second, it would shrink the cloture process on subcabinet nominations by reducing post-cloture time from 30 to 8 hours. This change would be in the form of a standing order and would be effective for the 113th Congress.

When a few Senators threaten to filibuster or object to proposed unanimous consent agreements, those Senators should have to come to the floor to speak or object. Our bipartisan group's reform proposal urged the leaders to give notice that the existing rules of the Senate will be used more vigorously to force filibusterers to show up on the Senate floor to speak, and their colloquy on this matter reflects the leaders' intention to do so.

This proposal includes reasonable protections for the minority, and it reforms our procedures in ways that can end the gridlock that bedevils us. And as it accomplishes those important reforms, this proposal allows the Senate to avoid a process that would break the rules of the Senate and do untold damage to this institution. Amending our procedures in this way, without use of the nuclear option, avoids having the Senate go from gridlock to meltdown. I want to spend some time discussing this process because the issue is extremely important and not fully understood.

The greatest difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives is the approach to minority rights. Senate rules protect the rights of the minority and the House rules do not. With those rights, a minority or even a single Senator can influence the legislative process. Without those rights, a simple majority can render a minority irrelevant and powerless to influence the legislative process.

The current Standing Rules of the Senate spell out clearly the process by which the rules of the Senate may be amended. Rule 5 states that the rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules. Rule 22 states that an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the Senators present and voting is required to end debate on a proposal to amend the rules.

Some Senators have argued that the Constitution empowers a simple majority of Senators to force a change in the rules at the beginning of a Congress, although the change would occur in violation of rule 5 and rule 22. Supporters of this position refer to this procedure as the ``constitutional option.'' Others, including many of us who have served here for longer periods of time in both the majority and in the minority, refer to it as the ``nuclear option'' because we can see the damage this procedure would do to the Senate. Indeed, many of us who are deeply concerned about its use vehemently opposed Republican threats to use this procedure in 2005.

How worried were we in 2005? Senator Kennedy was worried enough to tell his colleagues: ``By the time all pretense of comity, all sense of mutual respect and fairness, all of the normal courtesies that allow the Senate to proceed expeditiously on any business at all will have been destroyed by the preemptive Republican nuclear strike on the Senate floor . . . They will have broken the Senate compact of comity, and will

have launched a preemptive nuclear war.''

And here's what Senator Biden said on this floor: ``I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.''

Why were our esteemed former colleagues so concerned about walking this path? Here are some of the dangers inherent in the ``constitutional'' or ``nuclear'' option, and some explanation of why and how the Senate has consistently rejected this approach in the past.

Supporters of the nuclear option claim a simple majority of Senators can force a rules change at the beginning of a Congress, but do not argue that they can do so at other times. There is no basis for the argument that the beginning of a Congress enjoys a special status for rules adoption or amendment that the remainder of a term of Congress does not. If the Constitution grants a simple majority of Senators the right to amend the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a Congress, when and how does that majority lose that right? This temporal distinction cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution says that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. It makes no distinction as to when.

That provision of the Constitution, which governs the Senate, also governs the House. The House adopts its rules at the opening of every Congress, but it can and does amend its rules in the middle of a Congress. If the Constitution grants a simple majority of Senators the power to adopt rules, what would stop that simple majority from amending those rules in the middle of a Congress, just as our House colleagues do? And if that is the case, the Senate would no longer be able to fulfill its historic distinction of protecting the rights of the minority.

Some supporters of the constitutional or nuclear option claim that rule 22's supermajority threshold to end debate on a proposed rules change is unconstitutional because it inhibits the Senate from exercising its constitutional power to determine its rules under article I, section 5.

But the power to set its own rules is just one of the many powers granted the Senate by the Constitution. For instance, the Senate is empowered to provide advice and consent on nominations and to consider legislation to collect taxes, to pay the nation's debts, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Yet, filibusters have delayed or prevented the Senate from acting on those important measures and nominations that fall within the Senate's constitutional duties.

In testimony before the Senate Rules Committee, CRS expert Stanley Bach argued:

Adopting and amending its own rules is not the only thing,

and arguably not the most important thing, that the

Constitution empowers and expects the Senate to do. If

filibusters are unconstitutional because they impede the

Senate in its efforts to exercise its authority under section

5 of Article I to adopt or amend its rules, then why are

filibusters constitutional when they impede the Senate's

efforts to exercise its equally or more important authority

under Article I, especially section 8, to legislate on

matters committed to it and the House of Representatives?

In other words, if the filibuster of a rules change is unconstitutional, as nuclear option advocates contend, then a filibuster on any matter would also be unconstitutional because it would delay or prevent the Senate from discharging its constitutional duties. So by declaring the filibuster unconstitutional on a rules change, advocates of the nuclear option are thereby swinging the door wide open to eliminate the filibuster altogether from the Senate.

Some supporters of the nuclear option say that the Founders never intended for the Senate to have filibusters. They claim that the original Senate's rules included a motion for the previous question, which they further claim was used to end debate and bring a matter to an immediate vote. So, they argue, the early Senate supported the ability to close debate and bring a matter to immediate vote by simple majority vote.

The problem is that they have their history wrong. The early form of the motion for the previous question is unlike its modern day version. In the first Congress, both Chambers had a motion for the previous question in their rules--the Senate dropped the motion from its rules in 1806. But the early version of the motion was not used to bring a question to an immediate vote. The motion, which was phrased ``shall the question be now put,'' was used to suppress or postpone a question. It was moved by Senators who would then vote against the motion in order to suppress or postpone the pending question.

The modern day version of the motion for the previous question in the House serves as a simple majority cloture device. However, in the early House, just as in the Senate, if the motion for the previous question was decided in the negative, then the question was suppressed and the House moved on to other business; if the motion was decided in the affirmative, then the House would continue debate on the pending question, not immediately proceed to a vote. That practice continued until 1811, when a new precedent was set that the motion, when agreed to, would immediately end debate and bring a vote on the question. That was the origin of simple majority cloture in the House.

The early history of the motion for the previous question is set forth in the House of Representatives official guide to procedure, House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House:

In early Congresses, the previous question was used in the

House for an entirely different purpose than it is today,

having been modeled on the English parliamentary practice. As

early as 1604, the previous question had been used in the

Parliament to suppress a question that the majority deemed

undesirable for further discussion or action. The Continental

Congress adopted this device in 1778, but there was no

intention of using it as a means of closing debate in order

to bring the pending question to a vote. Early

interpretations of the rule in the House were consistent with

its usage in the Continental Congress. (House Practice, page

690)

Just as in the House, the early Senate rules had a motion for the previous question, which, just as in the House, was used only to end debate and move to another matter, not put a question to an immediate vote. This motion was eventually dropped from the Senate rules. In his speech to the Senate on March 2, 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr recommended changes to the rules of the Senate. Among those, he suggested that the Senate drop the motion for the previous question on the basis that it was duplicative to the motion for indefinite postponement. The diary of John Quincy Adams contains the following account of Burr's speech:

He [Burr] mentioned one or two of the rules which appeared

to him to need a revisal, and recommended the abolition of

that respecting the previous question, which he said had in

the four years been only once taken, and that upon an

amendment. That was proof that it could not be necessary, and

all its purposes were certainly much better answered by the

question of indefinite postponement. (Memoirs of John Quincy

Adams, edited by Charles Francis Adams, vol. I, p. 365)

Supporters of the nuclear option often reference advisory opinions and rulings by Vice Presidents Nixon, Humphrey, and Rockefeller that the Senate may adopt its rules by simple majority vote at the opening of Congress. These advisory rulings and opinions were rendered during actual attempts to change the rules, but the proposed changes were rejected, for good reason.

For example, Vice President Nixon believed the constitution granted a simple majority of Senators the power to force a rules change in violation of Senate rules. In 1957, when an attempt to change the rules was made at the beginning of a new Congress, Nixon made reference to his belief, but his advisory opinion recognized no special status for the beginning of a Congress. Nixon believed a simple majority of Senators could amend the rules at any point during a Congress. In his advisory opinion, Nixon said, ``The Constitution also provides that `each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.' This constitutional right is lodged in the membership of the Senate and it may be exercised by a majority of the Senate at any time.'' Vice President Nixon also acknowledged that his opinion was merely advisory, and not binding upon the Senate.

Vice President Humphrey advised the Senate in 1969 that if a simple majority of Senators, but fewer than the two-

thirds required by the rules, voted to invoke cloture on a proposed rules change, then he would rule that cloture had been invoked. On January 16, 1969, the Senate voted 51-47 in favor of a motion to invoke cloture. Vice President Humphrey ruled that cloture had been invoked by the majority. Humphrey's decision was appealed and the Senate reversed Humphrey's decision by a vote of 53-45. In doing so, the Senate established a clear precedent rejecting Vice President Humphrey's ruling that a simple majority could end debate.

Supporters of the constitutional argument point to statements by Vice Presidents Humphrey and Rockefeller in 1967 and 1975, respectively. In both these instances, the Vice Presidents advised the Senate that tabling a point of order against a motion to end debate by simple majority would validate the motion to end debate and cause it to self- execute. It is my understanding that both former and current Senate Parliamentarians disagree with the advisory opinions of Humphrey and Rockefeller. Tabling a point of order lodged against a motion to end debate by simple majority does not validate that motion or cause it to self-execute. In tabling the point of order, the question simply recurs on the underlying motion, and that question is debatable. At the end of my remarks I intend to propound several parliamentary inquiries that, I believe, will address the errors of the Humphrey and Rockefeller rulings.

Let's examine more closely these two advisory rulings.

In 1967, it was Senator McGovern who offered a motion to end debate by a simple majority on the question of proceeding to a rules change. Senator Dirksen raised a point of order that the motion was out of order because it violated the rules of the Senate. Vice President Humphrey advised the Senate that if the Senate tabled the Dirksen point of order, that act would serve to validate the constitutionality of the McGovern motion. But in any event, the Senate rejected the motion to table the Dirksen point of order by a vote of 37-61. Then the Senate sustained Dirksen's point of order by a vote of 59-37. This is yet another example of the Senate establishing a clear precedent rejecting simple majority cloture of debate on a rules change.

Then, again, in 1975, the Senate faced a very similar question. Senator Mondale offered a motion that would end debate with a simple majority. Majority Leader Mansfield raised a point of order against the motion. Vice President Rockefeller advised that if the Senate tabled the Mansfield point of order, he would interpret that act as an expression of the Senate that the motion was proper--again, as I will show in a moment, a dubious position. After considerable intervening action and debate, the Senate ultimately sustained the Mansfield point of order by a vote of 53-43. Once again, the Senate established a clear precedent of its rejection of simple majority cloture of debate on a rules change.

The danger of the advisory rulings by Humphrey and Rockefeller in 1967 and 1975 is made clear in a grave warning issued by our former colleague, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the longest serving Senator in the history of the Senate and the author of its definitive history. During the debate in 1975 on the question of whether a simple majority could end debate on a proposed rules change, Senator Byrd gave the following remarks that I believe we should heed carefully today.

May I say to those of us on our side that the day may

come--although I hope it will not be in my time--when we will

be in the minority, and it will take only 51 Senators from

the other side of the aisle to stop debate immediately,

without one word, on some matter which we may consider vital

to our States or to the Nation. Let me show the Senate how

this would work. ...

Suppose it were the Bay of Tonkin resolution, which

involved a declaration of war by the Congress of the United

States. Any Senator could contrive his own--and I do not use

that word disrespectfully--any Senator could write a

similarly phrased divisible motion, a multiple motion, sent

it to the Chair and all someone would have to do is raise a

point of order, another Senator would move to table the point

of order; if the point of order were tabled, the matter,

without debate, would immediately be put to a vote. If a

majority were to sustain that vote, debate would be closed on

the basic motion to move to consideration of the matter, or

if the matter were already before the Senate, to proceed to

vote immediately on the matter without further debate.

Senator Byrd that same day said:

I must say that I have to disagree respectfully with the

Chair. We are today operating by the rules of the Senate,

which rules and precedents provide that a motion before the

Senate, against which a point of order has been made and

tabled, remains before the Senate and is debatable. I cannot

for the life of me understand how, in this instance, the

motion, if the point of order is tabled, will not still be

before the Senate and will not be debatable. I cannot

understand that. I cannot understand how the Chair can

logically state that the Senate, by this motion, and by

virtue of its tabling a point of order, which is a separate

matter, ipso facto shuts off debate on the motion.

Now, if we go down this road, I can guarantee that every

Senator in this body will rue this day ... Senators, do we

want to do it this way? If this is done today, it can be done

any day. If it can be done on this constitutional question,

it can be done on any other constitutional question. It can

be done on any other point of order the Chair wishes to refer

to the Senate for decision. ... I believe that there is a

danger here that, if Senators will reflect upon it for but a

little while, they can foresee a time when we would say that

we went the wrong way to achieve an otherwise very notable

purpose ... Put this power in the hands of a tyrannical

leadership, and a tyrannical majority of 51 Senators, and we

are going to be sorry on both sides of the aisle. (121

Congressional Record 3842-3844)

So in 1975, the Senate did what it has always done when confronted with the question of simple majority cloture on debate of a motion to amend the rules. It rejected it.

The reason that the constitutional approach to rules changes has never been implemented is that every time it has been attempted, the Senate has not gone along.

When Vice President Humphrey explicitly ruled that the Senate could end debate by a simple majority, the Senate voted to overturn that ruling. In those instances when a Vice President has advised that tabling a point of order against a motion to limit debate on a rules change by a simple majority amounted to Senate approval of that motion, the Senate has either voted to reject that interpretation outright or voted against tabling the point of order.

The very basis for minority rights in the Senate is the absence of simple majority cloture, which would allow a majority of Senators to end debate. The absence of simple majority cloture is the only ground on which a minority, and sometimes a single Senator, can stand to demand they be heard on any given issue.

I believe by the letter and spirit of our rules, and the history and practice of this body, the bipartisan leadership proposal before us merits support. But I also recognize that these arguments alone may not suffice for the millions of Americans who understandably do not know or care much about the procedures and rules of the Senate, and who have watched for the last 4 years with mounting frustration as abuse of those rules has obstructed progress and mired the Senate in seemingly endless delay.

The foundation of Democratic governance is rule by majority consent. Indeed, democracy arose as a response to centuries of rule by a privileged and self-interested minority imposing its will on the majority. And the need for a system that protects minority rights is counter-intuitive to many Americans, who find it hard to understand why the majority's will does not always carry the day in the Senate.

But while the foundation of our Democratic system is rule by the will of the people, our Founding Fathers were careful to enshrine protections against what they warned was a dangerous threat to true political liberty. They called it ``majority faction,'' the possibility that a majority of the public would, in pursuit of its own interests, infringe upon the rights of their fellow citizens.

They crafted our system with a series of checks and balances to protect against the dangers of majority faction. And since the founding, many of the most important steps forward for our country have involved protecting minorities from the harms of majority faction.

The giants of the Senate have recognized the vital importance of protecting minority rights. Senator Daniel Inouye was rightly eulogized recently in this chamber as a wise and experienced presence in the Senate. He demonstrated that wisdom from the very beginning of his career here. In

his maiden speech on this floor, he implored the Senate to preserve its protections for minority views, even when those protections allowed a misguided minority to obstruct our Nation's progress. This is what he said:

The philosophy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

is not simply to grant the majority the power to rule, but is

also to set out limitation after limitation upon that power.

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion:

What are these but the recognition that at times when the

majority of men would willingly destroy him, a dissenting man

may have no friend but the law? This power given to the

minority is the most sophisticated and the most vital power

bestowed by our Constitution.

Understand what was taking place here. Senator Inouye spoke as the Senate was debating whether to weaken the rights of the Senate minority, so that the Senate majority could end grave injustice by enacting civil rights legislation. Senator Inouye, a man who had himself felt the pain of racial discrimination, even during and after his remarkable service to this nation during World War II, used his first speech on this floor to warn against the attempts ``to destroy the power of the minority . . . in the name of another minority.''

I want to make clear to my colleagues my belief that defense of the minority's rights in the Senate is not defense of the current use, and abuse, of those rights. It is not a defense of a few who threaten routinely to prevent consideration of judicial nominees unanimously approved in committee, or to prevent debate on legislation. We need to act so that the Senate can function again.

But we can't save the Senate by destroying its very nature and role. In the past, Senators strongly committed to reforming the Senate rules have been equally committed to preserving its institutional strengths. Listen to the words of Senator Mansfield, who, in 1967, worked to reform the cloture rule so the Senate would function more normally-- but, importantly, urged his colleagues not to pursue those reforms by the destructive means of establishing simple majority cloture to end debate on a rules change. While arguing strongly for reform, Senator Mansfield said, ``[The] urgency or even wisdom of adopting the three- fifths resolution does not justify a path of destruction to the Senate as an institution and its vital importance to our scheme of government. And this, in my opinion, is what the present motion to invoke cloture by simple majority would do.'' Senator Mansfield added: ``I simply feel the protection of the minority transcends any rule change, however desirable. . . . The issue of limiting debate in this body is one of such monumental importance that it reaches, in my opinion, to the very essence of the Senate as an institution. I believe it compels a decision by more than a majority.''

In 1975, Senator Byrd argued in favor of the rule change reducing the number of votes needed to end debate from 67 to 60. But he strongly opposed using simple-majority cloture of the debate on that rules change. ``I feel that a three-fifths cloture vote would protect the minority, protect the uniqueness of this institution, and preserve a fair and equitable way to close debate. But I am not for destroying the Senate as a unique institution in an effort to reach that end.''

In 2010, in testimony before the Rules Committee on this subject, Senator Byrd said:

During this 111th Congress, in particular, the minority has

threatened to filibuster almost every matter proposed for

Senate consideration. I find this tactic contrary to every

Senator's duty to act in good faith. I share the profound

frustration of my constituents and colleagues as we confront

this situation. The challenges before our nation are too

grave, too numerous, for the Senate to be rendered impotent

to address them, and yet be derided for inaction by those

causing the delays. . . . Does the difficulty reside in the

construction of our rules, or does it reside in the ease of

circumventing them? A true filibuster is a fight, not a

threat, not a bluff. . . . Now, unbelievably, just the

whisper of opposition brings the `world's greatest

deliberative body' to a grinding halt. . . . Forceful

confrontation to a threat to filibuster is undoubtedly the

antidote to the malady.

There have without question been times when a self-interested or hide-bound minority in the Senate has frustrated American progress. But there have also been times when a Senate majority has attempted to impose its will in ways that would have been harmful. Those instances resonate far less loudly when one is a supporter of a frustrated majority. But those of us who have served in the minority in this body, as I have for nearly half my time in the Senate, remember them well.

In the recent past, Senate Democrats in the minority used the protections afforded the minority to block a series of bills that would have unwisely restricted the reproductive rights of American women. We beat back special-interest efforts to limit Americans' ability to seek justice in our courts when harmed by corporate wrongdoing. We used those protections to seek an extension of unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. We used them to oppose the nomination of nominees to the Federal courts who we thought would do great harm to the law. Progressives distressed that the recent fiscal cliff agreement raised the estate tax exemption to more than $5 million should recall that without the protections afforded the Senate minority, a total repeal of the estate tax would have passed the Senate in 2006. Forty- one Senators prevented that from happening.

Over the history of this body, giants of the Senate have repeatedly warned us against the danger of damaging, even with the best of intentions, the Senate's protections for minority rights and extended debate. Time and again, the Senate has heeded those warnings. While it is necessary to reasonably preserve those minority rights, it also is urgent that we restore the Senate's ability to function. Unless we do that, the Senate's character and function within our system of government will remain threatened by constant gridlock. The bipartisan proposal before us holds the promise of restoring the Senate's deliberative and legislative process, without going down a ``nuclear'' path that might severely damage the Senate in an attempt to save it. This proposal holds the promise of demonstrating to a nation hungering for bipartisan cooperation that we are capable of providing it. I urge my colleagues to embrace a bipartisan approach that will allow us to end the gridlock of which we have seen too much, and to do so with the bipartisan spirit of which our people have seen too little.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I will vote in support of the legislation before us because we have a responsibility to help our fellow Americans who have lost homes and businesses through no fault of their own. Natural disasters are something we can attempt to prepare for, but the destructive force of nature can overwhelm us, even when efforts are made in advance of devastating storms, floods, droughts, or other disasters. Further, the bill provides permanent reforms to the Stafford Act that will help to eliminate bureaucratic roadblocks that have caused problems for local communities in rebuilding after a disaster and in mitigating risks from future disasters.

Hurricane Sandy was one of those disasters that overwhelmed us with its damage. Over 125 people lost their lives, thousands of people were displaced, millions lost power, and fuel deliveries were disrupted. Tens of thousands of homes and businesses were destroyed, and public infrastructure was devastated. The storm is estimated to have caused such damage that it is projected to be the second or third most costly disaster in U.S. history. We need to provide the assistance to those impacted by Hurricane Sandy.

Other natural disasters have also pummeled the U.S. this year, including the wildfires in the West and Hurricane Isaac in the Gulf Coast region. The bill includes some funding for these other natural disasters, which I support. While Hurricane Sandy was most devastating, we also should be responsive to these other disasters.

One of these disasters had impacts on my great State of Michigan. This year, the Midwest experienced extreme weather including one of the worst droughts in history, causing tremendous damage to crops. Michigan also experienced unusually warm weather in March that resulted in an early bloom for many fruit crops, including tart cherries. These crops were then heavily damaged by a series of freezes during April and May. The drought, coupled with a warm winter, has resulted in near-historic low water levels in the Great Lakes, which is also a natural disaster. The Army Corps of Engineers reports that Lakes Michigan and Huron are more than two feet below their long-term average. Lake Superior is more than one foot below its long-term average. These low water levels threaten harbors with closure, hamper boaters from getting to safe harbor, and require vessels to light-load, causing shippers to lose millions of dollars of freight shipments and hampering our economic competitiveness. The bill includes $821 million in funding for dredging needs related to natural disasters. I entered into a colloquy with the bill manager to ensure that Great Lakes projects would be eligible for this funding. I am pleased Senator Leahy assured me that in fact Great Lakes harbors and channels impeded as a result of drought and low water levels would be eligible for this funding. When the Army Corps makes determinations as to how to allocate funds, I hope the Corps will prioritize funding for Great Lakes projects which are estimated to require $35 million to address the low water levels.

With respect to crop damage, the bill includes an amendment sponsored by Senator Merkley that reauthorizes several expired disaster assistance programs to assist ranchers and farmers, including an extension of the noninsured crop assistance disaster program. This program will provide critical assistance to farm producers, including Michigan tart cherry growers who are currently ineligible to purchase crop insurance for their crops.

I hope this bill will soon be passed by the House and be signed by the President. The people impacted by Hurricane Sandy and other disasters should not be kept waiting for their Nation to provide assistance. I hope we will be able to provide the funds for those in need.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who will be retiring at the end of this session of Congress. Her name is Christine Cowart, and for the past 6 years, she has served as the Chief Clerk of the Committee. She had previously served a term of 8 years as Chief Clerk under Senator Sam Nunn.

I know that 14 years sounds like a lot of time to most people, but that barely scratches the surface of Chris' service to the Senate. In fact, Chris holds a special place in the record books. In an organization like the Senate, known for some long-serving members, Chris would fall within the top ten list of longevity for senators, and no member currently serving has been here in the Senate longer than Chris.

The mere fact that she will be completing almost 41 years of service to the Senate is truly a remarkable accomplishment, especially in today's world where changing jobs has become the norm. And if that were all of her record, that would be amazing. But that is only part of the story. Chris made invaluable contributions to getting each of 41 of the 51 total National Defense Authorization Acts we have done annually since 1961. As Chief Clerk, it was her duty to shepherd the Armed Services Committee's annual set of hearings, meetings, and briefings that lead up to the DOD Authorization Act each year. Her duties also included showing the ropes to new senators and new staffers alike.

Chris took to heart the ideals of service she dedicated almost all of her adult life to service to her country and to the Senate. I remember Chris recounting how her father had escorted her here to the Russell Senate Office Building for her first interview with the Committee in the summer of 1972, shortly after she graduated from college. She said she didn't have any difficulty in deciding what to do after her father told her, ``Take the job.''

Chris' father was a career Navy man, having flown maritime patrol aircraft for the Navy during World War II and thereafter. He instilled in Chris the value of patriotism and service to country that she so exemplifies in her life.

During her service to the Committee, she served as mentor, confidant and advisor to the staff as they experienced weddings, divorces, births and deaths.

Chris has been a rock for the Committee, and I know I speak for all of the members and staff when I say, ``Chris, thank you for your service to the Armed Services Committee, to the Senate and to the country. You have set a standard of dedication and professionalism for all of us, and we will miss you!''

Mr. President, on behalf of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to bring to the Senate, along with Senator McCain, the conference report on H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. This conference report, which was signed by all 26 Senate conferees, all the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, contains many provisions that are of critical importance to our troops. This will be the 51st consecutive year in which a national defense authorization act will be enacted into law.

I thank my dear friend Senator McCain, our ranking minority member, for all that he did to bring us to this conclusion and for the years of great leadership on our committee. I have been lucky to have Senator McCain as a partner. I know both of us are grateful to the chairman and the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon and Adam Smith, for their hard work on reconciling the many differences between the House and Senate bill and for helping to produce a solid bill to support the men and women of our Armed Forces.

The conference report contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform. It will provide needed support and assistance to our troops who are deployed. It will make the investments we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

First and foremost, the bill authorizes a 1.7-percent across-the- board pay raise for all members of the uniformed services, consistent with the President's request.

The conference report contains strong additional sanctions on Iran. The Iran sanctions provisions will designate certain persons in Iran's energy, port, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors as entities of proliferation concern, subjecting many more transactions with such entities to sanctions. It will impose sanctions on persons selling or supplying or diverting to Iran a defined list of materials relevant to the aforementioned sectors, to certain Iranian specially designated nationals and blocked persons, or to be used in connection with certain Iranian military programs.

It is going to impose sanctions on any insurance or reinsurance provider or underwriter that knowingly provides underwriting service, insurance, or reinsurance for activities for which sanctions have been imposed to any person in the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sector in Iran.

It will designate the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and its president as human rights abusers for their broadcasting of forced confessions and show trials, blocking their assets and preventing other entities from doing business with them and banning any travel to the United States.

The administration requested three modifications. In particular, one was additional time to implement the provision following enactment; the second was additional time between waiver renewals; and third was a modification of the exceptions clause from nondesignated Iranian ``financial institutions'' in the Senate-passed version to a broader term that would have incorporated nondesignated Iranian ``persons.'' That conference report provides two of the three modifications--the additional time requested. It does not make a change in terms of the exceptions clause.

The conference report contains a few provisions addressing detainee issues. These provisions extend existing limitations on the transfer or release of Gitmo detainees for another year. We did not adopt the permanent limitations in the House bill. We also provided new flexibility for dealing with detainees who cooperate with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement authorities pursuant to pretrial agreements.

The report establishes new congressional notification requirements for military detainees held on naval vessels and for third-country nationals who are released from military detention in Afghanistan, but the report does not place any conditions or limitations on such transfers.

The conference report does not include the Senate language regarding military detention inside the United States. The House conferees would simply not accept this provision. Instead, we included a provision that says and states the following:

Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force,

(Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law

112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the

writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in

a court ordained or established by or under Article III of

the Constitution to any person inside the United States who

would be entitled to the availability of such writ or such

rights in the absence of such laws.

The provision in the fiscal year 2012 act, which is referred to in the language I just read--it is already law--that section in the 2012 act is section 1021. That section said the following:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of

United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested inside the United States. The language in this conference report reflects my view that Congress did not restrict or deny anyone's Constitutional rights in either the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force or the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. The Statement of Managers accompanying this conference report points out that ``constitutional rights may not be restricted or denied by statute.''

On the Alternative Fuel provision, the conference report does not include a provision of the House-passed bill that would have prohibited fiscal year 2013 funding for the production or purchase of alternative fuel if the cost of producing or purchasing the alternative fuel exceeds the cost of traditional fossil fuel.

The conference report does contain a provision that limits DOD's fiscal year 2013 Defense Production Act--DPA--funding for the construction of a biofuel refinery until--that is the key word--the DOD receives the promised contributions from the Departments of Energy and Agriculture for the same purpose. We do not limit Phase I of the DPA project, nor does the conference report limit the use of FY12 funds for biofuel refinery construction.

On ``cyber,'' the conference report requires the Secretary of Defense to create a process requiring defense contractors that use or possess classified or sensitive DOD information to report successful cyber penetrations of their networks or information systems. Additionally, if the Department is concerned about a particular event and feels the need to determine what DOD information may have been lost from such penetration, the provision would authorize DOD to conduct its own forensic analysis, upon request, and subject to limitations.

I know the Presiding Officer has a special interest in this area of cyber security. This provision in the Defense authorization bill represents a major breakthrough in the Nation's need to protect cyber-- our information systems and cyber security.

There are a lot of other sensitive areas where we are threatened with cyber attacks, such as financial, police, transportation sectors, which obviously we could not touch; they are not within our jurisdiction. They need similar action.

The conference report provides that the Secretary of Defense will evaluate, by the end of 2013, at least three possible future missile defense interceptor deployment locations in the United States--at least two of which would be on the East Coast--and then to prepare an environmental impact statement for the locations evaluated. It would also require the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to prepare a contingency plan for deployment of an additional interceptor site in case the President decides to proceed with such a deployment. However, it does not mandate or authorize deployment of any missile defense site, and does not require the Defense Department to submit a deployment plan to Congress.

For Afghanistan, the conference report includes a sense of Congress in support of the President's plan for the transition of lead responsibility for security to the Afghan security forces in 2013 and the drawdown of most U.S. forces by no later than the end of 2014. Specifically, the sense of Congress provides in part that the President should seek to ``. . . take all possible steps to end such operations at the earliest possible date consistent with a safe and orderly draw down of United States troops in Afghanistan.''

The conference report also calls for an independent assessment of the size and structure requirements of the Afghan National Security Forces necessary for those forces to be able to ensure that their country will not again serve as a safe-haven for terrorists that threaten Afghanistan, the region, and the world.

On TRICARE, the conference report establishes modestly increased cost-sharing rates under the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program for fiscal year 2013 in statute, and in fiscal years 2014 through 2022, limits any annual increases in pharmacy copayments to increases in retiree cost of living adjustments. The Administration's proposal would have tripled beneficiary copayment rates over the next 10 years.

The conference report also requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 5-year pilot program to refill prescription maintenance medications for TRICARE for Life beneficiaries through TRICARE's national mail-order pharmacy program, resulting in savings to the government of $1.1 billion over the next decade.

Regarding Air Force force structure, the conferees adopted language establishing a commission, which would consist of eight members, four appointed by the President and four appointed by leadership of the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Commission would be required to report to the Congress by February 1, 2014, in time to inform congressional action on the fiscal year 2015 budget request, on an Air Force force structure that would, among other things, meet the current and anticipated requirement of the combatant commanders while achieving an appropriate balance between the regular and reserve components of the Air Force, taking advantage of the unique strengths and capabilities of each.

The conference report would provide that during fiscal year 2013, the Air Force would be required to maintain the alternative force structure proposed by the Air Force on November 2, 2012, after Congress clearly indicated it would reject the original plan. We modified the November plan to add an additional 32 fixed-wing, intra-theater airlift aircraft (C-27s and/or C-130s) beyond the number proposed by the Secretary. This addition will help us provide sufficient aircraft to meet the Army's fixed-wing, direct support/time sensitive airlift mission requirements.

Once again, I want to thank Senator McCain. As I said before, I have been honored, pleased, and lucky to have Senator McCain as my partner in leading the Armed Services Committee. I know how indebted we both are to our staffs as well as to all of the members who work so well together on a bipartisan basis.

Our majority and minority staffs were led by Rick Debobes and Ann Sauer. They have done amazing work on this bill. They did a month's worth of work in weeks. They did a week's worth of work in days, and they did a day's worth of work in hours.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a full list of the majority and minority staff, who gave so much of themselves and their families, be printed in the Record.

I would note that the committee's chief clerk Chris Cowert will be retiring at the end of this year after completing more than 41 years on the committee staff. She has been a

driving force behind the staff support of the annual Defense Authorization Act, and she will be sorely missed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky is flat out wrong. There is no such language in the bill which denies the right to trial by jury. I think those are the same kinds of charges against last year's bill. We are trying to keep up with the false charges that the Senator makes, so we put language in this year's bill which says nothing in last year's bill does or could be implied to do any such thing as the Senator from Kentucky is charging. We have language in this year's bill and nothing from last year's bill. That was the same charge he made against last year's bill, shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or deny any constitutional rights in a court ordained or established under article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States.

Then he makes a totally outlandish charge that they were outmaneuvered and they were sneakier than we were. Where does that come from? What is the basis for that kind of a charge

against Senator McCain and me? We have put language in this bill which makes it absolutely clear that nothing we have adopted here in this Senate does anything like what the Senator from Kentucky said--denying the people the right to jury trial.

I totally reject his argument. He does not quote any language in this bill that does what he says this bill does. The Senator from Kentucky actually started his statement by saying this bill has language which will deny a trial by jury. What language and what page? It makes the allegation and sort of lets it sit there. Well, it is flat out wrong.

I yield the floor.

I very much thank my dear friend from Arizona.

I thank the Presiding Officer. The only one thing I will add to this subject before we vote--the Senator from Arkansas seeks to speak and we will run out of time soon--is that a provision which is in our bill, which both the ranking member and myself voted for, which was stricken, one of the arguments against it was made by the ACLU. Our friend from Kentucky talks about something in this bill which denies the right to jury trial and the proof he gives for that is something that is not in the bill, which is--it violates logic, to begin with, but putting that aside--one of the arguments against keeping it in the bill was made by the American Civil Liberties Union and surely they believe people's rights to trial and jury trial should not be denied.

So the allegations made by the Senator from Kentucky are wrong. There is absolutely no substantiation for them, including the one which was just referred to by Senator McCain. But the statement he makes that there is language in this bill--here is the bill. Where is the Senator from Kentucky? What page of the bill is he referring to that contains the language he says denies people the right to trial? It is simply not there.

I yield the floor.

Yes, that is correct. The language does not apply to fiscal year 2012 funds. We should all expect the agencies involved to adhere to the framework set forth in last year's memorandum of understanding.

Mr. President, let me thank Senator Pryor for his tremendous contribution to this bill and to this body. The fight he is waging here is the correct fight. This was not done well by the Air Force, to put it mildly. We froze it. They amended it. We have some problems with the amendment, but we had to reach a compromise with the House, which favored their modified bill, and there are some rough edges to it.

The Senator from Arkansas has very eloquently pointed out one of those rough edges. We put in this place in this bill a commission to try to avoid these kinds of problems in the future. That does not help this year. I wish it could. But, nonetheless, it is because of the efforts of the Senator from Arkansas and others, who pointed out the defects in the process this year, that we have been able to, hopefully, avoid a repetition of this in the future. I thank him for the many contributions he has made to this bill. His fight for his home State is passionate and effective, and I commend him for it.

Mr. President, I yield back our time, if we have any remaining.

Mr. President, in a few days, the Senate will no longer benefit from the service of a member who has left an indelible mark on national security policy and on the Senate. Senator Joe Lieberman has been my colleague and friend for more than two decades. We have shared triumphs and challenges, agreed and disagreed with one another, and each of us has served as a member of a committee the other chaired.

One challenge we have shared is the need to strengthen our nation's manufacturing sector, the economic backbone of our two states and indeed of the nation. Senator Lieberman has served as chairman of the Senate Manufacturing Caucus, which has benefitted greatly from his energy and leadership. He has been a dedicated supporter of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which helps U.S. manufacturers strengthen and grow in the face of international competition. In this work, Senator Lieberman has been an ally of Michigan working families.

Of course, Senator Lieberman and I have worked together on the Armed Services Committee, where he has been an active, thoughtful, principled and energetic member and subcommittee chairman. Senator Lieberman joined the committee in 1993, and from the start, he made an impact. He was the author of what came to be known as the Lieberman Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, directing the Department of Defense to conduct a Quadrennial Defense Review. This review has become an integral part of our nation's defense planning, encouraging the Pentagon, Congress and all who contribute to defense strategy to confront tough questions about strategy, capabilities and resources.

Over several years as chairman or ranking member of the Airland Subcommittee, Senator Lieberman has played an influential role in oversight of important modernization programs. His constant attention and leadership has helped the Army push through the challenges of acquiring and fielding the truly networked tactical force our nation needs, and of modernizing its helicopter force. He has provided close oversight of aircraft programs such as the F/A-18E and F, F-22, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the new KC-46 aerial refueling tanker.

Of course, the committee has grappled with a number of difficult policy questions over the last two decades, from the need to repeal ``don't ask, don't tell'' to the conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Senator Lieberman was the original sponsor of the legislation that repealed ``don't ask, don't tell'' and he played an important role in shepherding this legislation through the Armed Services Committee and the Senate. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Senator Lieberman on these issues, it's impossible to doubt his thoughtfulness and his dedication to finding the right solutions for our nation.

Senator Lieberman is my chairman on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. I'm privileged to chair that committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, where a small but incredibly talented and dedicated staff has made immense contributions to consumer protections, government oversight and our defenses against financial wrongdoing. I am deeply grateful for Senator Lieberman's support for our subcommittee's work.

We also have worked closely on the committee's efforts to protect Americans from potentially catastrophic releases from chemical facilities. I was a co-sponsor on legislation he authored with Senator Collins to address that threat, and I am thankful for his leadership in putting in place these vital protective standards. Senator Lieberman's work has also included badly needed reform of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster; improving our cybersecurity protections; and improving our defenses against disease pandemics.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is also where Senator Lieberman has accomplished what is likely his most lasting work: reform of our homeland security and intelligence communities in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Reforms of this scope by necessity have many authors, but certainly Senator Lieberman's role was at the forefront. His leadership was instrumental in passage of legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security, and in achieving vital reforms to the structure and practices of our intelligence agencies in the wake of the 9-11 attacks. These were sweeping, once-in-a-generation reforms, and Senator Lieberman was tireless in his advocacy for them.

In these and so many other ways, Senator Lieberman leaves an important and lasting legacy as he prepares to leave the Senate. He is a trustworthy confidant and I shall miss him. Barbara and I wish Joe and Hadassah every happiness as they embark on their next adventure together.

Olympia Snowe

Mr. President, it is an unfortunate reality that the number of people in Washington working for bipartisan solutions is significantly smaller than the number of people claiming to do so or proclaiming the need to do so. Nearly everyone seeks the ``bipartisan'' label; fewer wear it comfortably or practice bipartisanship regularly.

That is one reason I am sad to see Olympia Snowe leave the Senate. Over three terms, Senator Snowe has represented the people of Maine with intelligence and, yes, moderation. Here's how Time magazine put it in 2006, in naming Senator Snowe one of the nation's 10 best senators: ``Because of her centrist views and eagerness to get beyond partisan point scoring, Maine Republican Olympia Snowe is in the center of every policy debate in Washington.'' And I've been lucky to observe her work in those debates.

Start with her work on the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, where she has served both as chairman and ranking member. As a member of the committee, I have appreciated her dedicated advocacy for small business. She has worked hard to support SBA's Microloan program and programs for women owned businesses. She has helped improve SBA's trade and export finance programs; elevated the SBAs Office of International Trade and add export finance specialists to the SBA's trade and counseling programs; and established the State Export Promotion Grant Program, designed to increase the number of small businesses that export goods and services.

Senator Snowe also has been an enthusiastic supporter of our nation's manufacturers. As a former co-chair of the Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, she has worked to strengthen programs such as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which helps American manufacturers research and develop new technologies, increase efficiency, improve supply chains and out-innovate our overseas competitors. American workers from Maine to Michigan and beyond are better off for her support of this vital sector of the American economy.

Beyond manufacturing, our states are linked in another way: the historical lighthouses that dot our shores. I was pleased that Senator Snowe joined me in offering the National Lighthouse Stewardship Act, which would help local governments or nonprofit groups preserve these prized structures for the appreciation of generations to follow.

I was also fortunate to serve with her on the Armed Service Committee, where she served as Chair of the Seapower Subcommittee. She was a strong advocate for the men and women of the Navy and Marine Corps, and worked diligently to ensure that the Department of the Navy had the people and hardware the Navy needs to defend our nation's interests.

On these and other issues, Senator Snowe has worked across party lines for the good of her constituents and our nation. But I can think of no issue that better demonstrates her ability to reach beyond partisan interest than one of the most controversial issues of our time together here: the Iraq war.

I worked with Senator Snowe and a bipartisan group of senators who believed the status quo in Iraq was no longer acceptable and who worked together to chart a new course.

We joined together to advance our collective view that the primary purpose of United States strategy in Iraq should be to pressure the Iraqi political leadership to make the compromises necessary to end the violence in Iraq while accelerating the training of Iraqi troops to take responsibility for their own security.

We made clear that the open-ended commitment of U.S. forces to Iraq was over, thereby undermining the al Qaeda narrative that we were there as occupiers and signaling to the people and Government of Iraq that the time for political reconciliation had come.

As Senator Snowe rightly pointed out at the time, ``The Iraq government needs to understand that our commitment is not infinite. Americans are losing patience with the failure of the leadership in Baghdad to end the sectarian violence and move toward national reconciliation.'' She continued, ``It is imperative that Congress understands the importance of placing the future of Iraq's independence in the hands of those who should want it most--the Iraqi people and their government.''

As members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Snowe and I also worked as part of the Committee's effort to investigate the misuse of pre-war Iraq intelligence by policymakers.

Senator Snowe's support for the investigation and its findings, in the face of strong criticism from some in her own party, was important to bring transparency to the decision to go to war in Iraq and will help to ensure the American public is not similarly misled in the future.

Senator Snowe recently took another principled stand, in what will likely be her last vote as a member of the Intelligence Committee, when she was the only Republican member to vote to adopt the Committee's report on the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. That report definitively shows that torture is not effective in eliciting intelligence and will hopefully significantly influence how our nation deals

with the detention and interrogation of those we capture in the future.

Olympia Snowe's service has been of enormous benefit to the people of her state. She is rightly respected in this chamber, and around this country, as a leader who has not just talked a good game when it comes to bipartisanship, but has followed words with action, often at the cost of no little political discomfort for her. To the very end of her tenure here, she has fought, as she put it just last week on this, ``to return this institution to its highest calling of governing through consensus.''

I want to thank her for the many ways in which she has supported programs important to Michigan, and for the thoughtful approach she has brought to the many challenges we have faced together. As she returns to Maine, I wish Olympia and Jock every success in whatever endeavors may come. And I hope we can take to heart Senator Snowe's wise words as we seek to answer the challenges before us.

Scott Brown

Mr. President, I want to give my thanks to Senator Scott Brown, who leaves the Senate at the end of this session. I have not had the privilege of working with Senator Brown for as long as I have worked with many of the other Senators who are concluding their service here. But I am grateful for his work as a member of the Armed Services Committee, and for his support for some of the important reforms that helped put a cop back on the beat on Wall Street.

Scott's road to the Senate was not easy. Like all too many American children, he was the victim of abuse by those who were obligated to care for him. Senator Brown overcame great odds to become a United States Senator--odds that had little to do with politics. He is an example of our power to achieve despite great challenges, and we can all learn from that example.

Senator Brown was one of a handful of members who crossed party lines to support the Dodd-Frank Act, which provided vital reforms of the financial sector in order to help prevent a repeat of the financial crisis that crippled our economy. He and I disagreed on several important provisions of the act, and we disagree in many ways on how it can best be implemented. But his vote was very important to its passage.

As a servicemember for more than three decades, including a deployment to Afghanistan, Senator Brown has brought a valuable perspective to the Armed Services Committee. He has spoken eloquently of the need to honor our Nation's solemn obligation to our troops, our veterans and our families. He has advocated for the National Guard and supported significant policy changes that are important for our servicemembers, such as supporting victims of rape or incest and repeal of ``don't ask, don't tell.'' I thank him for his contributions to the committee's important work in fulfilling its obligation to servicemembers and their families.

Daniel Akaka

Mr. President, now that the 112th Congress will soon be coming to a close, the Senate will be able to take a moment to acknowledge and express our appreciation to those members who will be retiring when the gavel brings an end to the current session. One member who has had a great impact on so many of us on a personal basis is Daniel Akaka.

Danny, as I have come to know him, has been one of the strongest and most loyal parts of our Senate Prayer Breakfast. That regular gathering that many of us attend gives us an opportunity to come together to share our faith and discuss the difference it has made in our daily lives.

No one has played a more important role in those weekly meetings than Danny. His faith has brought him through some very difficult situations in his life and it has also helped him to pursue policies and programs that have made a difference in more lives than we will ever know.

When Danny was in the House he was the song leader. His understanding of the importance of music helped him to better express his faith. He led our singing of our hymns by providing us with the history of each song as he explained the meaning of the words that were used to bring its message to life. His faith also showed itself with his work on a sailing ship that helped to bring missionaries around the Pacific to share their faith with those who might otherwise have never heard such stories.

Danny is a veteran of World War II. His experience during the war gave him an understanding of the sacrifices our veterans made during their service and the importance of ensuring that we as a nation take good care of them and address their medical needs.

That is why one of Danny's great accomplishments here in the Senate has been his efforts on behalf of his fellow veterans. Whenever an important bill was taken up and passed, Danny immediately got to work, trying to determine the impact each bill would have on our veterans and how any negative impacts could be addressed and reversed. Just as we owe our veterans a great debt of gratitude for their service, veterans everywhere have a special place in their hearts for everything Danny has done over the years to protect and preserve the benefits they have earned with their service.

In addition to his great faith and his concern for our Nation's veterans, Danny also brought to the Senate his love of Hawaii and its great culture and history. It was a gift he shared with us over the years that increased our awareness of Hawaii's past and the great traditions of his home State.

Through the years Danny has made a reputation for himself here in the Senate as a careful, thoughtful legislator who works quietly but effectively. The good work he has done on a number of issues has had an impact that will continue to be felt for many years to come.

Thank you, Danny, for your service both here in the Senate and in our armed forces. You can be very proud of all you have achieved. You have represented your State very well. Thank you most of all for your friendship and for sharing your faith and the impact it has had on your life. You will be missed and not just by those of us in the Senate who have enjoyed having a chance to come to know you. You have been a great friend to our Nation's veterans, too, and they will always remember your commitment to them.

Scott Brown

Mr. President, now that the 112th Congress is coming to a close, the Senate will have an opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of those Senators who will be returning home at the end of this session of the Senate. One Senator I know I will miss in the days to come is Senator Scott Brown.

Looking back it is hard to believe that Scott has only been a member of the Senate for about 3 years. He has had an impact on our day to day deliberations over those years that far outweighs the time he has been a Member of the Senate. That speaks volumes about his ability to make the best use of his resources so that he could have an impact on those issues that concern the people of his home state.

When Scott was elected to the Senate he became the first Republican Senator from Massachusetts to have made it here in more than 30 years. For me, that is proof of the kind of candidate Scott was and the effectiveness of the campaign he ran.

His success in what was a very difficult race proved that Scott is a natural politician. He has a remarkable ability to grasp the core of the issues before the Senate and determine their possible impact on the people back home. He understands the people back home and he knows how they think and how they feel about the issues before the Senate. Equally important, Scott is able to explain those issues in simple, easily understood statements that stick in the minds of the people who hear him. He has a way with words that helps to win people over.

When Scott came to the Senate people were not sure what to expect. Was he going to tend to follow one Party or the other exclusively? No. Scott took up each issue individually, measuring them all with the yardstick of his principles and his determination to be an effective representative of the people of Massachusetts who sent him to Washington. It was not going to be easy, but Scott proved himself to be well up to the task.

As soon as he arrived, Scott found himself in the thick of a number of legislative battles. He took on each issue carefully and thoughtfully which thoroughly confused all those who thought they had Scott all figured out. Scott

proved to be an independent individual who was determined to do everything he could to make a difference in Massachusetts and in Washington. He soon proved he was able to do all of that and so much more.

For 3 years, Scott has been an important addition to the day to day life of the Senate. I have no doubt we have not heard that last from him. He only needs to take a moment to see what he is interested in taking on in the next chapter of his life. He has a wealth of talent and ability and more importantly, he genuinely cares about the future of our Nation and all of the people who make up his home State and our Nation. There is a lot of opportunity out there for Scott and I know he will take full advantage of it.

Thanks, Scott, for your service. Thanks for working so hard to get here, and once you did, thank you for never doubting in your ability to make a difference. You have helped to make changes both here and back home in more ways than you will ever know. Thank you, too, for your friendship. For 3 years you have been a strong and powerful advocate for the future of Massachusetts and you can be very proud of all you have achieved during your time in the Senate.

Jon Kyl

Mr. President, it is a tradition in the Senate to take a moment at the end of the session to express our appreciation for the service of those Senators who will be retiring at the end of the year. This year it seems that we have quite a few retiring Senators who will be greatly missed because of the important role they have played in our leadership on both sides of the aisle. Such a Senator is Jon Kyl. I know we will miss him, his willingness to work with all of his colleagues, and his understanding of the issues and the need for us to come together to address them.

Jon Kyl may very well be one of the smartest individuals I have ever met. More importantly, he is not just highly intelligent, he also has an abundance of wisdom. That means he not only knows what is right--he does it! Putting knowledge into action is always the toughest part of the equation.

Here in the Senate, Jon has taken on a combination of assignments that most members would have found impossible. Jon not only served as our Party ``Whip'', but he also helped to direct our efforts with his great understanding of the many details that form such an important part of every issue we take up in the Senate.

Jon has been such a great asset for our party because his focus is on the details of every issue that comes before the Senate. That is why, more often than not, when a complex matter is up for our consideration, many of us want to know what Jon thinks and what his recommendation would be. His insights have always been an important part of many of his colleagues' consideration of what each of us should do to further the interests of the people of our home States.

One thing everyone who has spent some time with Jon knows about him is his great love for NASCAR. In fact it is more than just an appreciation--I don't think there are many who understand it with the depth that he does. He not only knows the stats, but he has a great feel for how each race played out, the strategy that was employed and the significance of the results. The way he describes ``how the game is played,'' the rules, and the key players in every race is enough to get anyone interested in attending the next event. NASCAR ought to make him their ambassador. He would increase interest in it right away. He had done a lot to make me a fan, too!

Politically, Jon is a staunch conservative. In fact, I am sure if you look up ``staunch conservative'' in a reference book it will refer you to their article about Jon. Jon's great talent makes him the perfect example of what a conservative is, and his knowledge serves to highlight the positions and issues that are important to all conservatives.

Something else that we have all come to know and appreciate about Jon is the strength of his faith and his belief in the importance of the family. One of his first considerations when we took up any legislation was how will this affect our Nation's families? It was that important to him. I can not imagine a better starting point for our discussions and deliberations.

Thank you, Jon, for your willingness to serve. You have made a difference in more ways than you will ever know. In the months to come, I will miss seeing you around the Capitol building. I will also miss having the benefit of your advice and counsel--though I intend to keep your number handy. What I will miss the most, however, is your friendship. Keep in touch with us. We will always appreciate hearing from you.

Jim DeMint

Mr. President, one of our traditions here in the Senate is to take a moment as the current session of Congress draws to a close to acknowledge and express our appreciation for the service of all those members who will be leaving when the gavel brings to a close the 112th session of Congress. I know we will miss them all--especially those like Jim DeMint who have played such an important role in the work we do every day in committee and on the floor.

I know I wasn't the only one who was surprised to learn that Jim DeMint was leaving the Senate to become the president of the Heritage Foundation. It is a great opportunity for him, and I know he will make the most of it in the years to come. We will miss him, though, because in a short time he had become an important voice in the Senate for the issues that meant a great deal to him.

Looking back, I have no doubt that Jim learned at an early age that the law is a great teacher and by coming to Washington to help draft our laws he could help to teach people all across the Nation what it means to be a citizen. He could also help to ensure that our government responds more fully and substantively to the needs of the people of our Nation. I think that is what most interests him about the Heritage Foundation--the knowledge that it will be another opportunity and provide him with a different platform from which he can continue to have an impact on those issues that mean so very much to him.

Over the years I have come to know Jim as he has taken his place as one of a very few who have been known as the conscience of the Senate. He is an individual of strong principles and core values and he brings his sense of direction to the work of the Senate every day.

As I have watched him in action, I have seen his ability to bring our attention both carefully and forcefully to the flaws in the legislative matters we had taken up for deliberations. In everything we did, Jim would take a close look at the wording of each clause and every proposed amendment and make it clear to us the reasons why he believed something needed to be changed. Then as we began our debate, he would then present his points with greater clarity and substance as he made clear his strong opposition to or support for the issue that was before us.

His views on how the Senate functions and how we could make it more effective and more efficient are clearly presented and strongly espoused in his books. I have no doubt that Jim's books could change the Senate if we could get every one of our colleagues to read them, consider them and then put some of his ideas into practice.

Thank you, Jim, for your willingness to serve and for all you have helped us to accomplish during your time in the Senate. You have presented us with some strong, bold ideas about our future as a nation and I have no doubt they will continue to have an impact on the Senate for a long time to come. Thanks for sharing them with us.

The new adventure you will now begin with the Heritage Foundation sounds like a challenge you will fully enjoy. I know we will continue to hear from you in your new post and we are looking forward to it. You have an important viewpoint to bring to our deliberations and it would be missed if you didn't continue to make your thoughts and concerns known. We will be watching and listening for your comments and suggestions in the days to come. Good luck and keep in touch!

Herb Kohl

Mr. President, now that the 112th Congress is coming to a close, we have an opportunity to acknowledge and express our appreciation for the service of our fellow Senators who will be retiring at the end of the year. Herb Kohl, one of those who will be returning home when the gavel brings to a close the current session of Congress,

will be missed, for he has been very active and involved in the day-to- day work of the Senate for many years.

My first contact with Herb came about when I found out that he had a ranch in Wyoming. I shouldn't have been surprised. As I have had a chance to come to know him, it seemed pretty clear that he had a lot of Wyoming in him. He is a gentleman and a gentle man in every sense of those words. He says what he means and he means what he says. For him, those words aren't cliches, they are an indication of the way he lives his life.

I know I am not the only one who thought that about Herb. That is why he has a well-earned reputation for being a calm, thoughtful legislator. He has a knack for taking on a problem, giving it his full attention, and then working with members on both sides of the aisle to develop a workable solution to solve it. That is why he has been so successful on a number of issues.

Herb's ability to patiently pursue an agenda, and then focus on a solution that would receive the support necessary to pass, has been a hallmark of his service. Never one to seek out public attention for his efforts, he has been rewarded with something far more important the knowledge that he has done a good job. His commitment to the future of his home State and our Nation has made it possible for him to have an impact on several issues of great importance to people from every corner of the United States.

Herb has been such a successful legislator in part because of his small business background. He understands better than most the important role our businesses play in our local, State and national economies. He is a man of vision who put his great talents into action when he helped to take the family business to the next level. His success in that effort helped to put him on a path that made it possible for him to do some things that a lot of us only dream about.

One of those great dreams he was able to make come true was his ownership of a professional sports team, the Milwaukee Bucks. There had been some speculation that the team might be bought and moved out of Milwaukee. Herb made sure that wouldn't happen. He bought the team and kept them in Milwaukee, and the people of Wisconsin appreciated his efforts to keep the home team--at home.

None of that would have been possible if not for Herb's ability to organize his time so that he could make the best use of that precious commodity. That has been one of his greatest assets in the Senate, too. Back home, his constituents know that he is a thoughtful person who is interested in them and is always on the watch for those things he can do as their Senator to make their day-to-day lives better.

His constituents have greatly appreciated his work in Washington on their behalf, and that is why they returned him time after time so he could keep doing such a good job of representing them. Herb has compiled an important record that he should be proud of because it reflects his commitment to the future of his home State and our Nation.

Ben Nelson

Mr. President, at the end of each session of Congress, as is our tradition, we take a moment to express our appreciation and acknowledge the many contributions each retiring Senator has made to the day-to-day work of the Senate. We will miss them when the gavel brings to a close the 112th Congress--especially Senators like Ben Nelson who have made an important difference during their service.

Since he is from Nebraska, Ben is a neighbor to my home State of Wyoming and he understands more than most the inherent problems and challenges faced by rural America. The people of Wyoming, Nebraska and the West have taken on a rugged way of life and it shows itself in their independence, their unique spirit and their great love of their community and their country.

Ben's upbringing and his ties to his State of Nebraska gave him an important understanding of the issues that surround our rural way of life. He took an active role in the Senate's work on agriculture and energy issues because he understands how great a concern they are back home.

Ben learned at an early age that he could make a difference if he worked hard and dedicated himself to the people of his State. It was a plan of action he put into everything he has ever done in life.

It helped him to make a successful run for governor, after which he decided to run for the Senate. He knew it wouldn't be easy, and it wasn't, but when the votes were counted he had won an important Senate seat and was headed here to represent his beloved home State.

Soon after he began his Senate career he cast a vote to lower everyone's taxes. That took courage. In the years since then, he has shown that he has a lot of that important quality in abundance.

Since we are neighbors and share an appreciation and understanding of rural America and our unique way of life, it shouldn't come as a surprise that we have a great deal in common. We both love our great outdoors and there are places in Nebraska that are almost as beautiful as Wyoming.

We both love to hunt, and Ben has had some very interesting opportunities to pursue his hobby all over the world. My hunting has all taken place in Wyoming. Because of our love of hunting and my great affection for fishing, Ben and I co-chaired the Sportsmen's Caucus. We have also worked together on a number of issues related to the great outdoors. They are matters that mean a lot to us and to our constituents back home.

Thanks, Ben, for your service and for your determination to make the position of your constituents known here in Washington. You have made a difference in many ways and you can be very proud of your legacy of service. Thanks, too, for your friendship. I have enjoyed coming to know you. Whatever you have planned for the future, I hope you continue to enjoy the great adventure of your life.

Jim Webb

Mr. President, as we have all learned, it doesn't always take a lifetime of service to make a difference, especially here in the Senate. Jim Webb is one of those unique individuals who had an impact here although he only served for one term before deciding to retire. I know I will miss him and his great support for our Nation's military and his heartfelt concern for our Nation's veterans.

As I have had the opportunity to come to know Jim a little better, it is clear that he is a man of strong convictions. As we say in the West, he is someone who means what he says and says what he means. He walks his talk.

When he first arrived in Washington he made it clear he wasn't going to be someone who could be taken for granted, especially when it came to those things in which he strongly believed. He put his home State of Virginia first and he was going to work hard to ensure that the concerns of the people back home were heard--and heard clearly-- whenever an issue was taken up that was going to have an impact on them.

A Vietnam veteran himself, he had a great interest in national security issues. His determination to make a difference in that area became very clear right from the start. Serving on the Veterans' Affairs Committee he worked very hard to ensure that our veterans were able to access the benefits they had earned with their service.

Jim is a good writer and he has several books to his credit. They have received a great deal of notice and one of his stories has been made into a movie.

I know I join with many of my colleagues in wishing him all the best as he returns to Virginia. I don't know what his next great adventure will be, but I do know his skills and talents will provide him with a number of opportunities to choose from in which he can continue to play an active part in his State.

Thank you, Jim, for your willingness to serve--not only here in the Senate but in our Nation's military. The recognition you earned with your efforts will continue to inspire others. Because of you our Nation's veterans have had a champion in committee and a warrior on the Senate floor who did everything you possibly could to ensure our veterans would never have to settle for anything less than the best. They have earned that and so much more with their service, their many sacrifices on our behalf and their unsurpassed love for our country.

Jeff Bingaman

Mr. President, at the close of each session of Congress, the Senate has traditionally taken a moment to express our appreciation for the service those who are retiring have provided to the people of their home State and our Nation. It gives us an opportunity to acknowledge the contributions that every Senator makes to the day to day operations of the Congress and the work they have been a part of as we have worked together to craft the laws that govern the Nation.

Over the years I have learned a great deal about how the Senate works and how to be an effective representative for the people of my home State from one of the best, Jeff Bingaman. He has compiled quite a record that he can be very proud of, and he has done it quietly, almost behind the scenes as he has shown himself to be ``a workhorse and not a showhorse.''

For those of us from the West, that is quite a compliment. In a nutshell, it means that someone is a lot more concerned with getting results than in getting the credit. It proves the old saying that you can get just about anything done if you don't care who gets the credit for it.

When I first arrived in the Senate, I had always believed in the importance of getting acquainted with how things work by taking a close look at how the people who were getting the results I was equally committed to achieving were doing it. Using that as my standard, one Senator who caught my attention quickly was Jeff Bingaman.

Jeff is a fellow Westerner and he knows and understands the issues that are so important to the people back home. As I watched him in action, I could quickly see why he was a success story here. He had a reputation for his ability to work with both sides of the aisle to get the results the people of his home State had sent him here to achieve. He had an understanding of the ramifications of the legislation we were working on that was second to none. Taken together, all of that had helped to make him an important ally in any legislative battle that needed to be won.

As I got to know him, I looked to him for his leadership on the issues that were on the minds of the people back home in Wyoming. He was taking the lead on a number of them as he worked to increase the awareness of our colleagues about matters like open spaces, water and the future of our energy industry.

Over the years, Jeff has been a mentor to me. I have learned a great deal from him from our work together on Western issues and from our service on the task groups we both worked on. Jeff has an ability to summarize a difficult issue simply so that it can be understood on a number of levels by those of us who come from backgrounds that are quite different from Jeff's and all our Western colleagues. He was then able to propose commonsense solutions that not only made sense to our fellow Senators, but were also able to obtain the support they needed to be considered and passed by the Senate.

That would have never been possible if not for one of Jeff's great gifts--his ability to find common ground in the midst of some sharp disagreements. He knows how to take the views of all concerned into account and then develop a plan of action taking a variety of viewpoints into consideration. Somehow he had a knack for finding a way to make it all work.

None of that should have surprised us. After all, Jeff has one credential on his resume that not everyone has the persistence and determination to acquire. Jeff was active in Boy Scouts at a young age and with a lot of hard work and determined effort, he was able to reach the rank of Eagle.

Some people might be surprised that I mention Jeff's Eagle, a great achievement that he was able to attain so many years ago. I have found that the Eagle speaks volumes about the strength of someone's character as they grew up. It proves that they were focused on more important things--like setting goals and then planning a course of action to reach them--one by one. There is no more valuable skill to have in the pursuit of a career and the development of a life than that.

During his service in the Senate, Jeff has compiled a record of which he can be very proud--as proud as the people of New Mexico are proud of him. That is why they kept sending him back to the Senate. It is also why his record of service will continue to receive the notice it deserves as the issues he has worked so hard on will have an impact on the West and the Nation for many years to come.

I don't know what Jeff's plans are for the future, but I feel certain we haven't heard the last from him. I hope he will continue to keep in touch with all of our Western delegations. I am certain we could all use a little New Mexico wisdom from time to time on the issues that come before us that are of such great concern to the West and rural communities all across the country.

Thank you, Jeff, for your service to New Mexico and to the United States. We appreciate your willingness to come to Washington to ensure the concerns of your State were heard and that they received the attention they deserve. Thanks most of all for your friendship over the years. I have learned a great deal from you and about you and I know the lessons I have learned from you about the Senate and our Committee structure will continue to make me a more effective advocate for Wyoming and the West. Whatever the next chapter of your life holds in store, I know you will give it your best--just as you have done with every other great adventure in your life.

Kay Bailey Hutchison

Mr. President, now that the campaigns are over, the elections have been held, and the Senate is winding down its current session, I appreciate having this opportunity to express my great appreciation to those Senators who have had a great impact on me and our work together in the Senate. Such an individual is Kay Bailey Hutchison, who has had a remarkable career as the Senator from the great State of Texas.

Senator Hutchison and I go back quite a way--in fact, we go back to the days before I was elected to the Senate. That was when I had just beat the odds and managed to receive the nomination of my party to the Senate. A great part of the reason for my success had to do with the support I received from my family and the enthusiasm we put into everything we did that year. It really had an impact throughout the State during the primary season. Now that the primary was over, however, the real battle was about to begin.

I knew, as soon as I was nominated, that I had a problem. I was running against a very strong candidate, a woman with a wealth of experience in politics who had already waged and won a statewide race. I had no doubts that we could still win, but I wasn't kidding myself that it would be easy, either.

Fortunately, I had a secret weapon--Kay Bailey Hutchison. She agreed to come to Wyoming and campaign with me. That was a tremendous blessing because she had a natural feel for politics and she more than made up for my lack of experience in running a statewide campaign. She gave me a lot of good advice and we took it all. Then we set out on the campaign trail and that is where she really proved to be an asset.

Each stop we made Senator Hutchison showed that she was a natural politician. People responded to her and the way she spoke during our events. She made it clear that she was a hard worker who said what she meant and meant what she said. Her Texas style played well in Wyoming and it really made a difference for me.

Then, when I came to Washington to begin my work in the Senate, I watched her take on some pretty difficult issues. She had a talent for seeing the best solutions to those complicated problems and that helped her to make a difference in her home State and here in Washington.

What most impressed me was her ability to see a problem as it was developing and then formulate a strategy to deal with it before it became any more difficult. She was very focused on the needs of her home State and what she could do here in the Senate to make sure that the issues of most concern to the people of Texas were addressed.

Back home, Senator Hutchison has always been concerned about our young people and what she could do to ensure they realize they can be anything they want to be if they are willing to work hard to succeed. That is why the young women of Texas look up

to her and see her as a model of what they can also hope to someday achieve. That led her to publish a collection of stories about successful women. Senator Hutchison knows that a good biography is more than a source of inspiration, it is a very specific ``how to'' manual that young women all across the country can look to for inspiration, guidance and direction on how they can hope to achieve the same kind of success in their own lives.

Senator Hutchison has a remarkable family and I know that she is very proud of them. Not too long ago, she and her husband decided to adopt a child. They wound up adopting not one, but two children who are blessed to have two such special parents. It's just another example of the way Senator Hutchison has been reaching out to help those who need her in so many ways over the years.

Senator Hutchison has blazed a trail in so many ways during her career in public service. She was the first woman ever elected to the Senate from Texas, and during her service she has helped young women all across her home State of Texas to realize that there are no limits to their future. They can be anything they want to be if they are willing to do whatever it takes to succeed, just as Senator Hutchison has done. She is not just a role model, she is an example of what is possible for everyone to achieve.

Kent Conrad

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, there are many people in this town who say they are worried about the deficit. But all too often, those claiming the mantle of ``deficit hawk'' are pretty dovish about making the hard decisions required to reduce the budget deficit and bring down the national debt. Some use the deficit to argue for damaging important programs that provide for the safety and well-being of Americans. Others, in a brazen bit of obfuscation now decades-old, make the disproven claim that the budget-busting tax cuts they prefer would actually reduce the deficit.

In this maze of distortion and debunked arguments, Kent Conrad is like a clean prairie breeze. He cares deeply about the fiscal health of our Nation, and for more than two decades, he has been dismantling faulty arguments and fuzzy budget math with facts and figures and with charts, yes, charts. In naming Senator Conrad one of the 10 best Senators in 2006.

Time magazine reported that the support staff here in the Senate had become so overwhelmed by Senator Conrad's chart requests that they gave up and gave him his own printing equipment. Kent Conrad doesn't just know the facts. He wants you to know them too--and in bright colors.

Behind the flash charts are deep substantive knowledge and a rigorous approach that eschews wishful thinking. Senator Conrad knows that the way out of our deficit problem, the path that avoids the fiscal cliff, means looking at our entire budget picture, both the spending that goes out and the revenue that comes in. He laid out the facts recently here on the Senate floor, saying:

The public understands we face both a spending and a

revenue problem. Spending is near a 60-year high, as this

chart shows. The red line is the spending line; the green

line is the revenue line. But for those who say it is just a

spending problem, I don't think the facts bear that out,

because the revenue is near a 60-year low. I think most

logical people would say we have to work both sides of this

equation.

This logical approach makes Senator Conrad a strong ally. I have been proud to join with him on efforts to end some of the many distortions and loopholes that increase the deficit and make our Tax Code less fair to working families. Earlier this year, he and I introduced the CUT Loopholes Act, which would reduce the deficit by $155 billion over 10 years through elimination of several offshore tax loopholes, and through elimination of the stock-option loophole, which forces American taxpayers to subsidize the large stock-option packages regularly awarded to corporate executives. In March, we were joined by Senator Whitehouse in advocating for inclusion of a portion of the CUT Loopholes Act in the Senate's surface transportation bill, and our amendment was adopted by the Senate. It did not become law, but the Senate's action represented real progress in the fight against tax loopholes.

Senator Conrad and I have worked together on another important issue--the effort by many multinational corporations to secure a ``repatriation'' tax break for some of the billions of dollars they hold offshore. That was tried once, in 2004, and as Senator Conrad accurately notes, that repatriation holiday was ``a complete and utter failure at job generation.''

He also has been a forceful advocate for the need to address the tax rates on capital gains and dividend income. The low rates on these forms of income is a driver of our budget deficits and of rising income inequality. As Senator Conrad said in a recent interview about the need to address tax rates:

It's very clear to me. You do have to have rate increases,

especially on capital gains and dividends it's needed and

fair.

Not just needed, he said--fair. And that is what I think we should keep in mind about Senator Conrad's work to address the deficit in an honest and forthright way. Yes, he knows the facts and figures, knows them as well as anyone. But knowing the numbers is not enough. Budget math is not an academic exercise. We are not here to represent numbers on spreadsheets. We represent people--actual human beings, with dreams and ambitions and hope. And always, Kent Conrad has marshaled the facts and figures in support of real people. He knows the toll that out-of- control deficits can have on generations to come. He recognizes the need to address rapidly rising entitlement spending--but also the need to preserve important programs that have made so much of a difference in the lives of Americans, especially the most vulnerable.

He and his wonderful wife Lucy have been dear friends to my wife Barbara and me. The four of us have hosted dinners together to deepen our understanding of both the pressing issues of the day and of transcendent issues such as the origins of matter and the universe.

Senator Conrad is leaving the Senate, but the need for his kind of rigorous approach and concern for the impact of our policies is not going away. I hope we can learn from and follow his example as we move forward to confront our Nation's challenges.

Ben Nelson

Mr. President, there are few issues we deal with on the Armed Services Committee in which the stakes are so high or the policy questions so complex as in dealing with our Nation's strategic forces and capabilities. The fearsome power of our strategic weapons, the urgency of avoiding mistakes, the difficult strategic calculations they require, the advanced technologies involved, all of these combine to make strategic forces complicated and of paramount importance.

It has also been the signature issue for Senator Ben Nelson during his service on the Armed Services Committee. Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee since 2009, Senator Nelson has long been one of the Senate's most thoughtful voices on issues related to our nuclear arsenal, space programs, missile defense and other strategic issues. As he prepares to leave the Senate, we are losing an outstanding contributor to our nation's strategic thinking and decision-making.

Certainly the presence of Offut Air Force Base and U.S. Strategic Command in Senator Nelson's home State give him first-hand evidence of the importance of these issues. And appropriately, he brings a common- sense Nebraska viewpoint to our consideration of them.

Senator Nelson's efforts were important to the Senate's 2010 aproval of the New START treaty, a significant step forward in our nuclear arms reduction efforts. He made it clear in that debate that he is a firm believer in the need to ensure that the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons laboratories are modernized and able to support the existing nuclear stockpile so that we do not have to return to nuclear testing.

His common-sense approach has been especially noticeable in issues involving management of the nuclear weapons laboratories as they balance the science behind stockpile stewardship and meeting day-to-day problems with the deployed nuclear forces.

As Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, he has helped ensure strong oversight of and support for the development, testing and deployment of effective ballistic missile defenses, including the Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense in Europe that is already providing protection for our forward deployed forces, our allies and partners against Iran's current and emerging ballistic missiles.

He has been an advocate for improving our deployed and planned homeland ballistic missile defense capabilities, including efforts to understand and correct the problem that led to a flight test failure of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system in December of 2010. In this regard, he has supported rigorous and operationally realistic testing of our missile defense systems.

Of course, strategic issues are not Senator Nelson's only concern. On the Armed Services Committee, before he chaired Strategic Forces, he was chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, demonstrating a keen understanding of the issues and a deep concern for the men and women of our military and their families. He has been a tireless advocate for the National Guard and for Nebraska's farm families, and a fighter for working families across America, advocating for a reasonable minimum wage and for important workplace protections. And he has been among our most passionate voices for an end to the partisan gridlock that has marked Washington, and the Senate, for far too long.

None of these issues are simple. All of them are vitally important. Senator Nelson's thoughtful, careful contributions have without question made our Nation safer, made our military forces more effective, our use of precious taxpayer dollars more effective. He has earned the respect and affection of the people of Nebraska, and he will be sorely missed on the Armed Services Committee and in the Senate. Barb and I wish all the best for Ben and Diane as they continue their efforts to serve their State and our Nation.

Jim Webb

Mr. President, Jim Webb has served our Nation in ways that few Americans can match. He is a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War, where he was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts. His experiences in Vietnam helped him shape a series of novels for which he has received justified critical praise and which helped readers understand the experience of war and those who fight it. He served as the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Reserve Affairs, and later as Secretary of the Navy. He won enormous praise for his television coverage of the Marine mission to Beirut in the 1980s, and later for ``Born Fighting,'' a history of Scots-Irish immigrants to America.

For the last 6 years, he has been serving his Nation in the capacity we in the Senate have seen firsthand, as United States Senator from Virginia. It has been my privilege to serve with him on the Armed Services Committee, and as chairman, I have benefitted greatly from his intelligence, his experience, and his dedication to the men and women who wear the uniform of our military. Let me reflect on a few of the ways in which I have seen up close Senator Webb's dedication to service.

Senator Webb is rightly recognized for his work on national security, but that has not been his only concern in the Senate. He has been a welcome voice here on issues of economic fairness. Soon after his election to the Senate, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal of an urgent need to address growing economic inequality. He wrote:

[T]he current economic divisions in society are harmful to

our future. It should be the first order of business for the

new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work

to bring true fairness back to economic life.]

And he has acted on those words, fighting for a tax system that is more equitable to working families; for trade policies that recognize not just the benefits, but the costs, of free trade; and for education policies that give all Americans, including those already in the workforce, the skills and opportunities to prosper.

An issue on which I have been able to work closely with Senator Webb is the posture of U.S. military forces in the Asia-Pacific region and, in particular, the plan to realign Marine forces in the Pacific. I traveled with him to Okinawa and Guam, and even the island of Tinian, and saw firsthand his extraordinary knowledge and understanding of the issues. I have benefitted greatly, as I know Senator McCain has, from his insights on this complex and difficult issue, which involves pressing strategic issues, enormous budget pressures, and the concerns of our close ally Japan. Senator Webb's hard work on this issue has helped resolve the impasse that was blocking progress on the plan to move some of the marines off of Okinawa and move us closer to an achievable, affordable plan for Marine realignment that will benefit the people of Japan and the United States while better serving our national strategic and security interests in this important region.

But what is perhaps most notable about Senator Webb's service in the Senate is the way that he has joined three of his concerns--America's national security, the need for greater economic fairness, and his affection for the men and women of our military.

This is perhaps best expressed by the post-9/11 GI bill, legislation he introduced on his first day in office, and whose passage he pursued with great determination. When signed into law in 2008, the post-9/11 GI bill provided the largest expansion of educational benefits for veterans since World War II. Just as the original GI bill honored the service of World War II veterans and helped pave the way for millions of servicemembers to earn college degrees, so, too, has Senator Webb's legislation honored the generation that has served in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. The impact of this legislation, in improving the lives of our veterans and in its benefits for our Nation as a whole, will be large and long lasting.

Senator Webb has been a tireless advocate for the men and women of our military, and in particular for our junior enlisted troops. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel, he has fought for adequate pay and benefits, and against the unscrupulous who would seek to profit by taking advantage of these young men and women. Senator Webb speaks eloquently of the great strains of more than a decade of high operational tempo on these men and women and their families, and of the ``moral contract'' between our Nation and the troops who defend us. He speaks as the descendant of veterans, as a veteran himself, and as the father, father-in-law and brother of veterans. The Senate, and the Nation, have been better off the last 6 years having that voice in the Senate. I have been grateful for his counsel, and I am sorry we soon will no longer have the benefit of his service on the Armed Services Committee or in the Senate. But even though we will miss him, I have no doubt Jim Webb's service to our Nation will long continue, and I wish him every success.

Jon Kyl

Mr. President, if success in the United States Senate depended only upon working alongside those with whom we agree, this would be a pretty uncomplicated and uninteresting place. We are a large and complex Nation, made up of people with varying interests, preferences and beliefs. This is where the representatives of a diverse Nation come to try to resolve those differences into coherent national policy. And success in this body depends on the efforts of Senators of differing beliefs and backgrounds who labor to discover common ground.

This is on my mind as I consider the career of Senator Jon Kyl, who is leaving the Senate at the end of his third term representing the people of Arizona. We have differed many times here in the Senate. And we also have sought common ground. These efforts are totally consistent.

In the wake of the 2001 terror attacks, our Nation's response took many forms. Our military, intelligence and security agencies were obviously essential to that response, but importantly, we did not neglect a less obvious need: the need to cut off terrorist financing. Senator Kyl played an important role in this. He was a co-sponsor with me of legislation to give financial regulators important new authorities to act against terror financing.

We found common ground on the need to speak out in strong and clear opposition to the repressive regime in Iran. Last year, he and I were part of a bipartisan group that offered a resolution calling for an end to the violent repression Iran's government has carried out against its own people, urging international action to support the people of Iran, and reaffirming America's commitment to universal freedoms.

I was proud to work with Senator Kyl on these and other important issues before the Senate. I respect and deeply appreciate his commitment to protecting our Nation and to the universal standards of human rights that are such an important part of America's legacy. I wish Senator Kyl and his family every success and happiness as he returns to Arizona.

Daniel K. Akaka

Mr. President, Michigan and Texas have much in common, despite the fact they are North vs. South, cowboy boots vs. snowshoes, mesquite vs. pine.

One of the things we have in common is water. Our States are, economically, historically, and culturally tied to great waters: Texas to the Gulf of Mexico, Michigan to the Great Lakes. And this shared interest has afforded me the pleasure of working alongside Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a true Texas pioneer.

As the lead cosponsor of the Harbor Maintenance Act, Senator Hutchison has been an invaluable ally in the effort to ensure that America's harbors receive the maintenance funding they need to help our economy grow. Her efforts were instrumental in recruiting 37 cosponsors on our bill and in securing language regarding harbor maintenance for the first time in a transportation bill. Her efforts have made a significant difference in the lives of the thousands of American workers whose jobs are directly tied to well-maintained harbors, from the Port of Galveston to the scores of ports dotting Michigan's shoreline.

Senator Hutchison has shown important leadership on other transportation issues, such as a more equitable formula for Federal surface transportation funding, and for adequate funding for State maritime academies, including academies in Texas and Michigan, that help meet the needs of our commercial shipping industry as well as the Department of Defense.

She has been an able and dedicated advocate for our Nation's veterans. She pioneered the concept of the homemaker IRA, which helped millions of American women achieve greater retirement security. She has energetically pushed for stronger science and educational programs, including the establishment of a groundbreaking medicine, engineering, and science academy in her State.

We shouldn't be surprised at these and other successes. When she first graduated from the University of Texas Law School, she bumped up against the misguided tendencies of the law firms at the time to dismiss female candidates, no matter how talented. Undaunted, she walked into a local TV station and asked for a job as a reporter and became the State's first female television reporter. She took a detour, but her experience covering politics led to the Texas House of Representatives, the State treasurer's office, and eventually to become the first Texan woman elected to the U.S. Senate.

The Senate will miss her dedication, her quite effectiveness, her ability to seek practical, bipartisan solutions. She has made a habit of making history, and I wish her the best in whatever history-making endeavors she turns to next.

I yield the floor.

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

When 7-year-old Danny Inouye saw the Japanese planes over his Hawaii home on December 7, 1941, his first impulse was to help. So he ran to help. He had emergency medical training. He used that training to help bind the wounds of the Americans injured in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

His second impulse, just as strong, was to defend our country. But the America of 1941 did not want his service. In fact, it considered Danny and his fellow Japanese Americans suspect and called them enemy aliens and confined more than 100,000 of them to internment camps. When Danny Inouye tried to enlist to defend his country, his country told him: You are not welcome.

That Danny Inouye did not allow anger and resentment to overcome his love of country says something remarkable about him and about our country. When in 1943 President Roosevelt allowed Japanese Americans to enlist in the fight against Nazi Germany, Inouye and thousands of young men answered the call. He burned with desire to defend the Nation that had told him and people of his background: You may not serve; a nation that still held thousands of Japanese Americans behind barbed-wire fences.

When he left Hawaii for the Army, his father told him: This country has been good to us. Whatever you do, do not dishonor this country. Danny, on more than one occasion, told stories about his Army training in Mississippi, about the racial segregation he saw. He told the story of how after he returned from World War II he stopped in California on the way home to Hawaii to stop to get a haircut and was told: We don't serve Japs here.

He stood there in full dress uniform, his chest covered in medals, a hook in place of the arm blown apart by a German rifle grenade. Even then he had to confront hatred. There is so much that is remarkable about the life of Dan Inouye, the story of his service on the battlefields of Italy is indeed remarkable, physical courage he displayed in winning the Medal of Honor is alone enough to earn the title ``hero.''

But rising above his physical courage and the guts he showed is the moral courage it took for Dan Inouye and his fellow Japanese Americans to even set foot on that battlefield. What is it that spurs some of our countrymen to offer their lives in defense of a country that shuns them? Where does that love of country come from? How can we impart some of it to those who too often take this country for granted?

It would be a wonderful tribute to Dan Inouye to seek out ways to encourage such service by future generations. Dan Inouye's work did not end when he took off his soldier's uniform. In many ways, it was just beginning. Forced by the loss of his arm to give up dreams of a medical career, he entered politics. His was one of the most remarkable careers in public service our country has ever seen. We will miss Dan Inouye so much in the Senate, his leadership, his legislative talent, yes, but also his friendship, his humor, his humility, his steadfast belief in the American people. He was the last remaining Senator who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In that vote and so many others, he served the Nation and the Senate with distinction that few have ever matched.

In Michigan we proudly claim an early connection to this noble man. Much of his recovery from the wounds he suffered in Italy took place at a veteran's hospital in Battle Creek, MI. There he met two other young men, a soldier from Kansas named Bob Dole and one from Michigan named Phil Hart. They formed a lifelong bond, one that endured all the way to the Senate.

In 2003, when we dedicated that former hospital in Battle Creek, now a Federal office facility, as the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center, Senator Inouye told the audience: All of us have chapters in our lives, milestones. My most important chapter, he said, was a Battle Creek chapter. This is where I learned what democracy was all about, where I learned what America was all about.

To have imparted any lessons on America to Dan Inouye would be a remarkable honor. What we may have taught him pales in comparison to what he taught us.

A few years ago, in a speech honoring his fellow Japanese-American veterans, Danny told his audience that our greatness as a nation lies in part in our willingness to recognize the flaws in our past, including our treatment of Japanese Americans and our determination in whatever limited way we could to make amends. Dan Inouye served his country because of his dream of what we could be: a nation unbound by our all too human failings.

He believed to his core that we are able to shed old prejudices. He believed that our Nation, despite its flaws, shines with such bright promise that we could inspire remarkable service and sacrifice, even in those who suffer from our shortcomings, a nation so great that those we treat with disdain or even hatred can respond with love that knows no limit. This love was as powerful as the love that Dan Inouye showed for all Americans and for the very idea of America.

I am so grateful for the lessons that Danny taught me, so grateful for his friendship. Barb and I send our deepest condolences to Irene and all of Danny's

family, to the people of Hawaii, and to all of those touched by this remarkable man.