Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are no longer in an election year, which makes this the perfect time for this Congress to take action on real and meaningful election reform. Regardless of which candidates we voted for last November, we can all agree that in the world's greatest democracy, in the year 2013 we should put in place systems which ensure every voter will be able to cast their ballot without unnecessary delays, redtape, or restriction in our next elections. That is why I am looking forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, with leaders in State and local governments across the country, and with folks in the U.S. Department of Justice to discuss ways we can reform our election process to make voting more accessible for more Americans.

In his second inaugural address delivered just this Monday, President Obama made a point to tie voting rights to civil rights. President Obama spoke of the long American march toward justice. He said:

And the first steps of that march--of the journey toward a

better, fairer, more equal society, one where every American,

regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or

economic status, has the same shot at success--has always

started at the ballot box.

President Obama mentioned Seneca Falls, a central moment in the movement for women's suffrage, and Selma, the emotional heart of the fight for equal access to voting rights for African Americans. He said:

Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to

wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.

He is right.

The 2012 elections were a wake-up call to those of us who treasure the right to vote. All over our country--in blue States and red States--Americans saw their fundamental right to vote eroded by exceptionally long lines, confusing rules, and widespread voting machine malfunctions. There were problems in more than a dozen States documented in the media.

There were voting machine irregularities in Pennsylvania and Colorado; error-ridden voter rolls in Ohio; delays counting ballots in Arizona; voters waiting in lines 5 hours long in Virginia and 8 hours long in Florida. We have to do better than this.

As Americans, the right to vote is in our DNA. So just days after these 2012 elections, which had such widespread problems, I introduced the FAST Voting Act, the Fair, Accurate, Secure, and Timely Voting Act, along with Senator Warner and colleagues in the House, Congressman Connolly and Congressman Langevin.

Our bill challenges States to implement commonsense changes well before the next election. It would provide incentives and competitive grants to those States that can turn around their poorest performing polling places, improve the administration of their elections, and make voting faster and more accessible to all voters.

As a former county executive myself, I know States and local governments are laboratories of democracy. When it comes to administering elections, many States and counties are getting it right. We can learn from them and replicate their successes elsewhere in the country to ensure these same problems do not plague the next national elections.

For example, Florida was one of many States with rampant election problems in 2012. There were long lines, limited early voting, and other issues that may have disenfranchised as many as 49,000 Floridians, according to a study by Professor Theodore Allen of Ohio State University.

Floridians such as Richard Jordan waited more than 3 hours in a line that just was not moving to try and cast his ballot on election day 2012. He had already worked a 10-hour shift that day. He was exhausted, his back hurt, he was hungry, and ultimately in anger decided he could not wait anymore. He simply gave up and walked away. He was denied the opportunity to cast his ballot by an unprepared, underresourced, or just incompetent election system.

On behalf of voters across the State such as Richard, earlier this month Florida's elections administrators presented Florida's Governor Rick Scott with a list of reforms they would like to see implemented to prevent these problems from happening again. Governor Scott admitted that his own State's election process was clearly in need of improvement. He said he agreed with some of the election supervisors' proposals. In my view, this is a very positive step forward, and one which should be undertaken in every State where there is documented need for stronger, fairer, faster, and freer elections.

In my view, the government can and should play a role in incentivizing that process to ensure that election improvements are made to last. It can help States move forward in using available technology, and it can ensure States do a better job of enforcing laws that are already on the books.

For example, the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the motor voter law, requires States to allow voters to register when they renew their driver's license at the DMV or at other governmental agencies. Yet there are substantial and credible allegations that some States all across this country--whether blue, red, or purple--are not fulfilling their obligations under this act.

In talking with elections administrators from around the country, it is clear to me that compliance with existing law is not complete. We have to do more to ensure voters are afforded the rights given to them under current law and that State agencies are doing what is required to simplify the registration process to maintain uniform and nondiscriminatory voter rolls and provide widespread registration opportunities. Enforcing existing law is just part of the solution to the voting problems we saw across our country in 2012.

We also have to look forward at ways to deliver the best and most efficient voting process to all Americans. There is still much more we can do to meet that goal, and I think part of the solution is the mechanism of the FAST Voting Act.

Our legislation focuses on cost-effective reforms, such as making it easier to register online and ensuring citizens who move to a new jurisdiction can easily transfer their voter registration. If we use modern technology that we already have at our disposal, we can make it easier for all eligible American citizens to cast their ballot and ensure every vote is counted.

President Obama was right to mention election reform alongside the most essential civil rights struggles in our country's history in his inaugural address on Monday. Making it harder for citizens to vote is a violation of their civil rights. Long lines are just another form of voter disenfranchisement. Running out of ballots can be just another form of voter suppression. The fact is access to vote is denied when registration is cumbersome or inaccessible and when early voter vote- by-mail options are just not available.

Let's do something now when we are no longer hamstrung by election year politics in the Senate so that changes that last and make a difference can be implemented well before the next election.

As someone who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee and who often speaks with foreign heads of State, civil society leaders, and voting advocates from around the world, it is an embarrassment that in 2012 our Nation could not overcome the simple challenges to ensuring fair and accurate elections all across our country.

If we ignore these assaults on America's civil rights that we saw last November, we are certain to have to endure them the next time around. We cannot stand by and allow that to happen. Our democracy needs to be a model to the rest of the world for how to ensure that every citizen gets to exercise the right to vote.

Let's find a way to come together to put meaningful election reforms in place now before we deny one more American their fundamental right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are no longer in an election year, which makes this the perfect time for this Congress to take action on real and meaningful election reform. Regardless of which candidates we voted for last November, we can all agree that in the world's greatest democracy, in the year 2013 we should put in place systems which ensure every voter will be able to cast their ballot without unnecessary delays, redtape, or restriction in our next elections. That is why I am looking forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, with leaders in State and local governments across the country, and with folks in the U.S. Department of Justice to discuss ways we can reform our election process to make voting more accessible for more Americans.

In his second inaugural address delivered just this Monday, President Obama made a point to tie voting rights to civil rights. President Obama spoke of the long American march toward justice. He said:

And the first steps of that march--of the journey toward a

better, fairer, more equal society, one where every American,

regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or

economic status, has the same shot at success--has always

started at the ballot box.

President Obama mentioned Seneca Falls, a central moment in the movement for women's suffrage, and Selma, the emotional heart of the fight for equal access to voting rights for African Americans. He said:

Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to

wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.

He is right.

The 2012 elections were a wake-up call to those of us who treasure the right to vote. All over our country--in blue States and red States--Americans saw their fundamental right to vote eroded by exceptionally long lines, confusing rules, and widespread voting machine malfunctions. There were problems in more than a dozen States documented in the media.

There were voting machine irregularities in Pennsylvania and Colorado; error-ridden voter rolls in Ohio; delays counting ballots in Arizona; voters waiting in lines 5 hours long in Virginia and 8 hours long in Florida. We have to do better than this.

As Americans, the right to vote is in our DNA. So just days after these 2012 elections, which had such widespread problems, I introduced the FAST Voting Act, the Fair, Accurate, Secure, and Timely Voting Act, along with Senator Warner and colleagues in the House, Congressman Connolly and Congressman Langevin.

Our bill challenges States to implement commonsense changes well before the next election. It would provide incentives and competitive grants to those States that can turn around their poorest performing polling places, improve the administration of their elections, and make voting faster and more accessible to all voters.

As a former county executive myself, I know States and local governments are laboratories of democracy. When it comes to administering elections, many States and counties are getting it right. We can learn from them and replicate their successes elsewhere in the country to ensure these same problems do not plague the next national elections.

For example, Florida was one of many States with rampant election problems in 2012. There were long lines, limited early voting, and other issues that may have disenfranchised as many as 49,000 Floridians, according to a study by Professor Theodore Allen of Ohio State University.

Floridians such as Richard Jordan waited more than 3 hours in a line that just was not moving to try and cast his ballot on election day 2012. He had already worked a 10-hour shift that day. He was exhausted, his back hurt, he was hungry, and ultimately in anger decided he could not wait anymore. He simply gave up and walked away. He was denied the opportunity to cast his ballot by an unprepared, underresourced, or just incompetent election system.

On behalf of voters across the State such as Richard, earlier this month Florida's elections administrators presented Florida's Governor Rick Scott with a list of reforms they would like to see implemented to prevent these problems from happening again. Governor Scott admitted that his own State's election process was clearly in need of improvement. He said he agreed with some of the election supervisors' proposals. In my view, this is a very positive step forward, and one which should be undertaken in every State where there is documented need for stronger, fairer, faster, and freer elections.

In my view, the government can and should play a role in incentivizing that process to ensure that election improvements are made to last. It can help States move forward in using available technology, and it can ensure States do a better job of enforcing laws that are already on the books.

For example, the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the motor voter law, requires States to allow voters to register when they renew their driver's license at the DMV or at other governmental agencies. Yet there are substantial and credible allegations that some States all across this country--whether blue, red, or purple--are not fulfilling their obligations under this act.

In talking with elections administrators from around the country, it is clear to me that compliance with existing law is not complete. We have to do more to ensure voters are afforded the rights given to them under current law and that State agencies are doing what is required to simplify the registration process to maintain uniform and nondiscriminatory voter rolls and provide widespread registration opportunities. Enforcing existing law is just part of the solution to the voting problems we saw across our country in 2012.

We also have to look forward at ways to deliver the best and most efficient voting process to all Americans. There is still much more we can do to meet that goal, and I think part of the solution is the mechanism of the FAST Voting Act.

Our legislation focuses on cost-effective reforms, such as making it easier to register online and ensuring citizens who move to a new jurisdiction can easily transfer their voter registration. If we use modern technology that we already have at our disposal, we can make it easier for all eligible American citizens to cast their ballot and ensure every vote is counted.

President Obama was right to mention election reform alongside the most essential civil rights struggles in our country's history in his inaugural address on Monday. Making it harder for citizens to vote is a violation of their civil rights. Long lines are just another form of voter disenfranchisement. Running out of ballots can be just another form of voter suppression. The fact is access to vote is denied when registration is cumbersome or inaccessible and when early voter vote- by-mail options are just not available.

Let's do something now when we are no longer hamstrung by election year politics in the Senate so that changes that last and make a difference can be implemented well before the next election.

As someone who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee and who often speaks with foreign heads of State, civil society leaders, and voting advocates from around the world, it is an embarrassment that in 2012 our Nation could not overcome the simple challenges to ensuring fair and accurate elections all across our country.

If we ignore these assaults on America's civil rights that we saw last November, we are certain to have to endure them the next time around. We cannot stand by and allow that to happen. Our democracy needs to be a model to the rest of the world for how to ensure that every citizen gets to exercise the right to vote.

Let's find a way to come together to put meaningful election reforms in place now before we deny one more American their fundamental right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in general debate as to H.R. 5949 and that my time in so speaking be charged against Senator Wyden.

Madam President, in this dangerous world, we have an obligation to give our intelligence community the tools and the resources they need to keep us safe. But we also have a fundamental obligation--just as great, I believe--to protect the civil liberties of law-abiding American citizens. A right to private communications free from the prying eyes and

ears of the government should be the rule, not the exception, for American citizens on American soil whom law enforcement has no reason to suspect of wrongdoing. Yet the legislation that we debate on this Senate floor today, the FISA Amendments Act, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act, would reauthorize surveillance authority that most Americans, most of the Delawareans whom I represent, would be shocked to learn the government has in the first place.

Under section 702, FISA permits the government to wiretap communications in the United States without a warrant if it reasonably believes the target of the wiretap to be outside of the country and has a significant purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information.

Of course, communications are by definition between two or more people, so even if one participant is outside our country, the person they are talking to may be here in the United States and they may well be an American citizen.

Under this legislation, the government is permitted to collect and store their communications but without clear legal limits on what can be done with this information. They can keep it for an indefinite period of time. They can search within these communications and use them in civilian criminal investigations. Perhaps most concerning of all to me, they can search information obtained under this act for the communications of a specific individual U.S. citizen without judicial oversight and for any reason. If these are all true and this is the case, then I am gravely concerned.

What is at issue today is the scope of the government's power to conduct surveillance without getting a warrant. The warrant requirement is enshrined in our legal system from the very founding of our Nation because we believe in judicial checks and balances. If the government suspects wrongdoing by a U.S. citizen, it must convince a judge to approve a warrant. Warrants are issued each and every day in courts across the United States for investigation of potential offenses across the whole spectrum of criminal activity, including crimes affecting national security. In contrast, surveillance under this act is not required to meet this standard, leaving American citizens vulnerable to potentially very real violations of their privacy.

The balance between privacy and security is an essential test for any government, but it is a vital test for our government and for this country.

This law, in my view, does not contain some essential checks that are supposed to protect our privacy.

This law in its current form does contain some checks that I want to review that are supposed to protect our privacy. It requires that the government surveillance program must be reasonably designed to target foreigners abroad and not intentionally acquire wholly domestic communications. The law requires that a wiretap be turned off when the government knows it is listening in on a conversation between two U.S. individuals, and it forbids the government from targeting a foreigner as a pretext for obtaining the communications of a U.S. national. All three of these are important privacy protections currently in the law.

The problem is that we here in the Senate--and so the citizens we represent--don't know how well any of these safeguards actually work. We don't know how courts construe the law's requirements that surveillance be, as I mentioned, reasonably designed not to obtain any purely domestic information. The law doesn't forbid purely domestic information from being collected.

We know that at least one FISA Court has ruled that a surveillance program violated the law. Why? Those who know can't say, and average Americans can't know. We can suspect that U.S. communications occasionally do get swept up in this kind of surveillance, but the intelligence community has not--in fact, they say they cannot offer us any reasonable estimate of the number or frequency with which this has happened.

The government also won't state publicly whether any wholly domestic communications have been obtained under this authority, and the government won't state publicly whether it has ever searched this surveillance, this body of communications, for the communications of a specific American without a warrant.

For me, this lack of information, this lack of understanding, this lack of detail about exactly how the protections in this act have worked is of, as I said, grave concern. Too often, this body finds itself in the position of having to give rushed consideration to the extension of expiring surveillance authorities.

The intelligence communities tell us these surveillance tools are indispensable to the fight against terrorism and foreign spies, just as they did during the PATRIOT Act reauthorization debate last year. Also as in the case of the PATRIOT reauthorization, the expiration of these authorities, we were told, would throw ongoing surveillance operations into a legal limbo, that it could cause investigations to collapse or harm our ability to track terrorists and prevent crimes. All of these are profound and legitimate concerns. It is precisely because this legislation is so important that it is all the more deserving of the Senate's careful, timely, and deliberate attention.

This kind of serious consideration requires more declassified information on the public record than we have available now. That is why I am supporting the amendments reported by the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, which would help to shine a light on exactly how this surveillance authority is used. It would direct the intelligence community inspector general to issue a public report explaining whether and how the FISA Amendments Act respects the privacy interests of Americans.

This amendment would also give us another chance to amend this FAA after we receive this report by adjusting the sunset not to 2017 but to 2015. The new expiration date would align the sunset of the FISA Amendments Act with those in the PATRIOT Act, allowing for more comprehensive review of both surveillance authorizations.

Concerns about privacy rights of law-abiding American citizens, as well as the striking lack of current public information, are also why I support the amendment of Senator Merkley to direct the administration to establish a framework for declassifying FISA Court opinions about the FAA. Secure sources and methods vital to the success of our intelligence community must be protected. I agree with that, and this amendment would do that. But the default position here ought to be that the legal analysis about the government's use of warrantless surveillance in this country is public rather than hidden from view.

I also strongly support the amendment of Senator Wyden to force the intelligence community to provide Congress and the public, as appropriate, with specifics on just how much domestic communication has been captured under the FAA and what the intelligence community does with that information. This amendment simply asks for the most basic information about the practical consequences of the use of the powerful surveillance authorities in this act. To what extent are these authorities being used to discover the content of private conversations by U.S. citizens? What is the order of magnitude? We don't know.

This amendment is simply common sense. The Delawareans for whom I work and the Nation for whom we work expect that the government cannot listen in on their phone calls or read their e-mails unless a judge has signed a warrant. If there is a reason why this requirement is not consistent with national security, then I say let the intelligence community make that case and allow us to debate that and consider it in public. It is simply not acceptable for the intelligence community to ask us to surrender our civil liberties and then refuse to tell us with any specificity why we must do so, the context, and the scale of the exercise of this surveillance authority. In my view, America's first principles demand better.

I thank Senator Wyden for his leadership on this issue, and I thank Majority Leader Reid for ensuring that we have the opportunity to debate and consider these amendments and the very important issues they reflect here today.

I urge all of my colleagues to consider carefully and then support these

amendments to the FAA. We cannot let the impending deadline distract us from the important opportunity to conduct oversight and implement responsible reforms. To simply be rushed to passage when we have known the deadline was approaching for years strikes me as an abrogation of our fundamental oversight responsibility. This Chamber deserves a full and informed debate about our intelligence-gathering procedures and their potentially very real impact on Americans' privacy rights, and we need it sooner rather than later. These amendments would allow us to have that conversation and to work together on a path that strikes the essential balance between privacy and security for the citizens of these United States.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, this has been a hard week in the Senate as we have said goodbye. As we have just seen in the remarks of the majority leader, retirements are very difficult. Parting with the company of honored and treasured colleagues in the Senate is as hard as it is anywhere in the world, but we have had some particularly difficult moments earlier today. We assembled in the Rotunda of this great building of the Capitol to celebrate the life of one of our greatest colleagues, Senator Dan Inouye of Hawaii. His desk sits draped in black, and his chair has a lei that was flown in from his home State of Hawaii.

This week we have all felt and known the change in the Chamber. The Senate has lost a giant and America has lost a hero. Danny Inouye was truly a great man, and I feel blessed in my 2 years here to have had the opportunity to sit with him over a private lunch, to joke with him occasionally in the anteroom, and to learn something of his spirit and his personality. He had such a big heart and a wonderfully gracious spirit.

Most of the Senators I have had the honor to come to know in these 2 years I only knew from a great distance as a local elected official or as someone in the business community at home in Delaware. When I asked Senator Inouye to lunch, I was intimidated. As a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, as a giant in the Senate, as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the President pro tempore of this Senate, frankly, I trembled to sit with him at a lunch and was delighted to discover a person who was so approachable, so warm, so human, so hard working, so loyal, so spirited, and so passionate. In the minutes ahead, I would like to share, if I can, a few insights about a dozen other Senators who are retiring from this body and a few among them whom I have had the joy of getting to know in the last 2 years.

We don't often see the level of humanity in the Senate that we have seen this week, but it is important to know that the people who work in this building can be better than the passing politics that sometimes dominates, and Senator Danny Inouye knew that. His enduring friendship with Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, was legendary. He believed passionately that it was important for us to work together and to get past party affiliation and the picayune matters and get together to do right for our country.

Of the many speeches I heard in this Chamber and the remarks we heard earlier today in the Capitol Rotunda, one thing leaps out at me about Danny Inouye: Even when he was declared an enemy alien--as were all of his ancestry at the outset of one of the greatest conflicts this world has known--Senator Inouye volunteered for service in Europe. He was a member of our most decorated military unit, the 442nd Combat Battalion. He engaged in the fields of Europe and the hill country of Italy in a moment of such personal sacrifice and remarkable bravery as to humble any who hear its details.

In his service over decades after that moment, he proved what he showed forth on that battlefield: that Danny Inouye believed in America even before America believed in him. Even in a moment of such immense injustice, which was bitterly unreal to thousands of people across this country of Japanese ancestry, this man's great heart, aloha spirit, and embrace of the American dream led us forward. He pulled us into the greatness that was meant for this country.

The star of Senator Inouye may have dimmed in this Chamber that is surrounded in its boarder by stars, but as I share the honor as the Presiding Officer over this Chamber, I will--in the days and months and years ahead--look to our flag and remember this Senator. He represented the 50th State, the State of Hawaii, from its very first moment of joining the stars on our flag in statehood. He has shown ever more brightly in his decades of service here, and that example of service pulls us forward into an ever brighter commitment to human dignity, decency, and the respect for all in this country that his lifelong service challenged us to believe in.

There are so many other Senators I want to speak about today, but let me turn to a few, if I might, and give some insight for the folks who only see Members of this Chamber on cable TV shows or in the give-and- take of election season or who only know them as the cutout and caricatures that the public thinks of as Senators. If there is a common thread between them, it is that they share that loyalty, work ethic, and humility that so characterized Senator Inouye in his decades here.

Dick Lugar

I had the honor to serve with Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana on the Foreign Relations Committee. He subscribes to the same philosophy. Over the 35 years he served in the Senate, he applied the practical perspective that experience as the mayor of Indianapolis gave him. He worked to make the world a safer place for all of us.

Along with nine of our colleagues, Senator Lugar will retire from this Chamber this month after a remarkable career. He knew the stakes were too high to let partisan politics and personality prevent progress. He partnered with Senator John Kerry, Senator Sam Nunn, and then-Senator Joe Biden of Delaware on the Foreign Relations Committee. Because of their work together, there are thousands fewer nuclear weapons in our world. Serving with Dick Lugar these last 2 years has been a tremendous honor.

Jim Webb

Serving with Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has also been an honor. He, too, is also a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. As a retiring colleague, he knows there are things in this world and in our lives more important than our politics. He was a decorated marine, a celebrated author, a former Secretary of the Navy, and now a respected Senator. His tireless work has helped to make the world safer, our veterans stronger, and our criminal justice system more fair. I will truly miss his company.

Kent Conrad

There are a few more retiring Senators I would like to share some more detailed stories about today, and I will start with the chairman from the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is a Senator I met many years ago. But if I am going to talk about him, I believe I have to have a chart. I really cannot speak to Kent Conrad's service and record in the Senate without a chart.

For decades Senator Conrad tackled the challenge of educating the men and women of the Senate and the people of this country about the very real fiscal and budgetary challenges facing our country. As we can see, especially after the debut of Microsoft Excel, and then after he was named Budget Committee chair, the steady increase and usage of floor charts by Senator Conrad has paved a path which few of us can hope to find.

Senator Conrad is a budget wonk after my own heart. He is a numbers guy. He is not afraid to get into the weeds and to project in a clear and legible format the minutia and magnifying details of the complex Federal budget. I am not sure I have met anyone in the Senate so passionately serious about the numbers and getting them right as my friend, Senator Conrad.

The first time I met him was more than 15 years ago. He had come to Wilmington for an event that then-Senator Biden hosted at the Delaware art museum. There were 200 folks in a big auditorium. I will never forget Senator Biden introducing Senator Conrad as the most thoughtful and detailed budget leader in Washington.

Senator Conrad stood up and fired up the overhead projector, the lights dimmed, and he launched into a lengthy discourse on the minutia of the Federal budget and deficit. After 30 minutes and more than 40 slides later, the lights came back up, and I think there were maybe 20 of us left in the auditorium. Everyone else wandered outside for the cocktails.

I was enthralled by his presentation, the clarity of his thinking, and his dedication to get things right for the American people. Today I am on the Budget Committee, and I have enjoyed serving with Senator Conrad as my chairman. It was, for this budget nerd, a dream come true to have the chance to show up on time and know that this Budget Committee chairman was the other member of the committee who always showed up on time. It gave us a moment to reflect on the challenges we faced and the very real solutions he has offered over these many years of service.

Senator Conrad has earned the deserved respect of his colleagues the old-fashioned way: through hard work, attention to detail, and thoughtful leadership. He has been trying and working hard for many years to get us to make the tough choices in the Senate that we need to make to deal with our national debt. He has not given up, and I don't intend to either. I am grateful for his friendship and service.

Jeff Bingaman

Another full committee chairman with whom I have had the honor to serve these past 2 years is Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, chairman of the Energy Committee. He is one of the kindest, smartest, gentlest people I have ever met. He has been a pleasure to work with on the Energy and Natural Resource Committee.

I remember we were both speaking at a conference on advanced energy research last year out at National Harbor. Thousands of scientists, investors, and entrepreneurs were there. I pulled up in front of the massive convention hall, and right out in front was a Prius with New Mexico plates. Sure enough, Chairman Jeff Bingaman jumped out of the driver's seat with no staff.

Here was the chairman of the Energy Committee and a Senator for nearly 30 years driving himself to a major policy speech in his Prius. He practiced what he preached as he prepared to deliver an important speech in a moment that showed his humility.

As unassuming a man as Senator Bingaman is, when he speaks, you listen. He is living proof that the value of one's words can and should exceed their volume. On that day at National Harbor, Senator Bingaman delivered a message similar to one he had given a decade earlier in a report entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' Senator Bingaman saw that this country was falling behind in the race for innovation and investment in research and education. These are things that lay the foundation for long-term competitiveness. This vision and concern haunted him, so he teamed up with our great colleague from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, and challenged the National Academy of Sciences to study this trend and offer recommendations. From that challenge, we got the Seminole study, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''

It asked what it would take for America to continue to lead in innovation. That led to the America COMPETES Act and the creation of ARPAE, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy. The very conference at which we had been speaking was the ARPAE annual conference. Both of these important accomplishments played vital roles in our future competitiveness. They are focused on nurturing innovation and creating a political system where political, scientific, and economic forces work together and not against each other.

That is Jeff Bingaman. That is his sweeping, long-range vision, and one we should all heed. His commitment to thoughtful and forward- looking service on our Nation's long-term competitiveness will be sorely missed. But even more, I know many of us will miss his reserved, dignified passion.

Herb Kohl

I had a similar experience with Senator Herb Kohl, my colleague on the Judiciary Committee. I remember in my first few months there that Senator Kohl spoke so rarely that when I first heard him speak at an event on the manufacturing extension partnership--one of his passions, and mine--I was struck by the power and reach of his voice. It is because he uses it so sparingly, but his example speaks even louder. He never sought the spotlight here but worked tirelessly to make a difference fighting for the little guy on antitrust issues in the Judiciary Committee.

He believes, as do I, if an American entrepreneur has a great idea, we should help protect that idea by preventing trade secret theft and other intellectual property threats. We also share a deep commitment to the idea that higher education should be more accessible and affordable to every student who wants to pursue it. I am honored to have the opportunity to take up from Senator Kohl's work on these and other important issues.

Outside this Chamber Senator Kohl has just as strong a voice and broad an impact with his philanthropy, but we would never hear him speak about it; that is just not his style. He has earned my abiding respect with his unassuming grace and his determined leadership.

Joe Lieberman

Those who adhere to the Jewish faith around the world are inspired by the ancient concept of ``tikkun olam''--``to heal the world''--to challenge each of us who seek to serve each other and our communities. Like Senator Kohl, my dear friend Senator Joe Lieberman has certainly risen to that challenge. He is a man deeply committed to his faith, which has significantly influenced his career and his drive to serve, and it is something I share with Senator Lieberman.

On my very first congressional delegation, my first trip as a Senator just a few months after being sworn in, I visited Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordan, and Israel. Senator Lieberman was on a different codel, and our paths crossed and we got to share a shabbat dinner at the David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem one night. As he was crossing the room for us to sit, I realized he could be elected mayor of Jerusalem.

As we sat and broke bread and shared, it was a great comfort for me. Earlier that day I had gotten word that Delaware had lost one of our great leaders, Muriel Gilman, a personal friend and a remarkable leader and a person of kindness and spirit. She was a pioneer for women in my State and personified this spirit of tikkun olam. So over dinner that night in Jerusalem, Senator Lieberman and I talked about Muriel, about what I had seen in Jordan and in Israel, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and my experience on my first trip as a Senator. It was a remarkable moment. Senator Lieberman was engaging and warm, interesting and passionate as we wove between talk about policy and faith, and he reflected with me on the point of his own life when his religion became his faith, when he really took ownership of the religion of his birth and how that faith and its lessons have shaped his public service. For me as a young Senator, it was a formative moment.

His passion for the stability of the world and the security of the United States and our vital ally, Israel, and his dedicated work for the clarity of the air we breathe and his tireless advocacy for the equality of all Americans regardless of whom they love have been an inspiration. His desire to work together and find responsible compromise has been motivating.

I am deeply grateful to Joe Lieberman for his service, his counsel, his friendship, and his lesson that no matter what faith tradition we are from, we can use our service in this Chamber as an opportunity to repair our world.

So here we are, 5 days before my family celebrates Christmas and 12 days

before the new year and the beginning of the so-called fiscal cliff. Our politics have paralyzed this Chamber and this town. But what the example of all of these remarkable Senators has shown us, what it has taught me is that we can still be better than our politics.

The humanity of this place, too often shoved aside by the politics of the moment, shows us that we can do better. One by one, these Senators, in delivering their farewell addresses to this Chamber, stood at their desks and each in turn urged us to find a way to return to the days when Senators knew each other and worked together. What will it take to get us to that point again--a horrific tragedy in an elementary school, a dangerous economic cliff, some devastating attack, a cyber assault on America?

Our retiring colleagues are each telling us, each in turn, that it is not too late to restore the humanity of this Chamber and make a positive difference in the lives of all we serve. Will we heed their call? I hope and pray we will because we can do better. We must do better. And in the spirit of each of these departing colleagues, I will do my level best. I hope we all can commit to doing the same.

Thank you, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for a period of up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart. When we first heard of the horrific shooting in Newtown, CT, on Friday, it was impossible for me not to react, not just as a Senator but as a parent, as a father. And as my wife and I spent the weekend reflecting on the heartbreaking loss of 20 innocent children and 6 of their teachers and faculty, as we talked to our own 3 young children about what had happened, we thought about the grief and the anguish for a whole range of different parents deeply touched by this tragic incident.

The first, of course, are the parents who lost their precious innocent children, their 6- and 7-year-olds in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday. Joel and JoAnn Bacon lost their precocious, outgoing, red-haired daughter Charlotte, just 6 years old. JoAnn had recently bought Charlotte a new holiday dress in her favorite color--pink--and a pair of white boots. Charlotte had begged and begged to wear her new outfit early, and on Friday, December 14, the last day of Charlotte's young life, her mother JoAnn agreed.

Steve and Rebecca Kowalski lost their active and athletic 7-year-old son Chase. Just 2 days before the shooting, Chase's next-door neighbor had asked him what he wanted for Christmas, and I understand he pointed to his two missing front teeth.

Any of us who have had the special blessing and joy of raising young children, especially at holiday time, can

only imagine the unbearable sorrow of these families who now and forever will have a child-sized hole in their hearts and their lives.

We offer you whatever small measure of comfort we can in knowing that you are not alone, that all across this country and around the world people pray for your healing, and we all hope that with time you and your families can come to understand and live through the grief of this moment.

We also think of other parents, parents who years before raised their young adult children to give back to their community and the next generation--young adults who chose to become teachers. In addition to the heroics of school principal Dawn Hochsprung, school psychologist Mary Sherlach, and teacher Anne Marie Murphy, a mother of four herself, three other very young teachers gave their lives to protect the students in their care: Lauren Rousseau, a 30-year-old substitute teacher; Victoria Soto, a heroic 27-year-old teacher; and Rachel Davino, a 29-year-old whose boyfriend was planning to propose on Christmas Eve. Their parents too, their families are in our prayers.

Also in our hearts today are the families of the courageous first responders who rushed toward danger as everyone else rushed away. In any emergency, Mr. President, as you know, being a former attorney general, our law enforcement officers face unknown danger with extraordinary courage. At Sandy Hook Elementary, police officers rushed to the site knowing full well that an armed gunman awaited them. What they found was unimaginable. Thank God they arrived as quickly as they did or the carnage might have been worse. But we need but reflect for a moment on what those police officers and firefighters and folks from the ME's office ultimately found--unspeakable carnage. These heroes could not react as parents, as community members. They had to choke back their own grief and horror to carry out their professional responsibilities to catalogue, investigate, and document every detail of this tragic scene so that justice could be done and lessons learned. The scars of those long hours on a crime scene like this last a lifetime, and first responders all across this country in situations such as this bear them with honor and dignity and without complaint.

This tragedy, of course, also has ripple effects far beyond Sandy Hook and far beyond Newtown, CT. All over this country there are parents whose children struggle with mental illness, with mental health challenges, who don't have the resources they need to cope. My office has had many calls from worried parents since Friday's shootings, worried for many reasons, but one that stood out for me was a dad from Newark, DE, whose own child is struggling with mental illness and who is working hard to try to find the resources to ensure appropriate care so that he won't someday be watching the television with horror as the tragic actions of his child unfold.

We think of the story also shared online of the mother in Idaho, terrified her own son has the capacity to kill someday and yet without the ability to give him the intensive medical care, treatment, and intervention she believes he needs.

Across this country, mental health care is a growing challenge for us. Between 2009 and 2011, States cut more than $2 billion from community mental health services. Two-thirds of States have significantly slashed funding in these difficult economic times, leaving parents seeking help for their mentally ill children often with nowhere to turn.

We must do better for all these parents--the parents who lost their children at Sandy Hook Elementary, the parents who lost their children who were teachers and faculty, the families of those who were first responders, and families who struggle with children with mental illness and mental health problems.

But, frankly, this week I also think about parents all over our country who have lost their children, just as precious and just as innocent as those at Sandy Hook, to gun violence, outside the media spotlight. The truth is gun violence knows no boundaries of race or class, but our national response at times seems to.

There were 41 murders in Delaware alone last year, 28 of them where guns were used as the murder weapon.

Sixteen-year-old Alexander Kamara was playing in a soccer tournament at Eden Park in my hometown of Wilmington this summer when he was shot and killed in execution style.

Dominique Helm, age 19, was standing with his teenage cousins on the steps of his Brandywine Village rowhouse last September when a gunman opened fire. He stumbled through the doorway and died in his living room as his mother Nicole ran to him.

Stories like this are tragically, appallingly, common across our country every day. Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with a gun. It happens in our streets and in our neighborhoods. It happens in movie theaters in Aurora, CO, and houses of worship at Oak Creek, WI. It happens in high schools in Littleton, CO, and at a college campus in Blacksburg, VA. It happens outside a supermarket in Tucson, AZ, where one of the six people killed was 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green--a child herself born on 9/11, imbued with a sense of hope and a call to public service, who wanted to meet her Congresswoman Gabbie Giffords in order to learn more about public service.

They say nearly 40 percent of Americans know someone directly who has been a victim of gun violence. In Christina's case, her father was my high school classmate back in Delaware. Gun violence touches families, communities, and neighborhoods all over this country.

So what do we owe these parents? What can we offer their families besides our thoughts and prayers? I believe we must fulfill our central responsibility of protecting the safety of our children and our communities, while also preserving the individual liberties guaranteed in our Constitution.

On Sunday night, we watched President Obama speak to a community reeling in shock and grief, for the fourth time in his time as President. He asked us as a Nation whether we are doing enough to protect our children, and he gave us the painfully honest answer that we did not give ourselves after Fort Hood, after Tucson, after Aurora. He said, No, we are not. We are not doing enough to protect our own children.

Horrible crimes like these have a very complex web of causes-- including, of course, mental illness. This complexity presents us with a complicated challenge. But the reality is the United States has the highest rate of gun deaths in the industrialized world, nearly 20 times higher than comparable nations.

In my view, this calls out for a comprehensive approach, for a thorough and searching examination of the causes of this uniquely American crisis. I believe it requires action by this Congress and our President.

I have received calls and letters, e-mails and Facebook posts, from Delawareans around the State, Republicans and Democrats, doctors and teachers, parents and children. They have shared with me their grief and their ideas, and they have called for action.

The United States has a long and proud tradition of independence, of protecting ourselves, of exercising our right to self-determination, of hunting and of a sporting tradition that is enshrined in our second amendment. And we have to recognize the importance--the legitimacy--of the concerns of gun owners to know that in the debate that can and will and should unfold in this Chamber we will respect their right to bear arms and that we will respect and honor this most important part of America's fabric. But every constitutionally protected right has its boundaries, its limitations.

I am troubled in particular by the thread that ties together too many of these tragic mass shootings: that the perpetrator had clear mental health problems, unaddressed, untreated mental illness challenges, and used military-style weapons and clips that have no place in everyday civilian life.

Several of my colleagues have already come forward with proposals-- Senators Manchin, Lautenberg, Warner, Feinstein, and others, and I will touch on a few.

I believe reinstating the ban on high-capacity magazines, focusing on ammunition and on the outrageously devastating impact of military clips and military ammunition particularly on children across all these instances--I

think we should focus on that, and reinstate the ban on high-capacity magazines in the next Congress.

In addition, Senator Lieberman just the other day on the floor--and he has been joined by Senator Rockefeller--has called for a study to gain a better understanding of the linked issues of mental health, mass shootings, and the desensitization of violence in our culture. President Obama has picked that up and carried it forward, and is proposing a new commission which the Vice President--Delaware's own Joe Biden--will be chairing. It is my hope that out of this important work we can find a path forward that marries the crying need to deal with mental health issues with cultural concerns about violence and desensitization with responsible limitations on the excessive use of military-style weapons and clips.

Last, in my view, we can and must do more to keep guns out of the hands of those with a history of violent crime or demonstrated mental illness. Our database system is broken and has to be repaired.

At Virginia Tech, 32 students and professors were murdered by a young man who got a gun he should have been prohibited from buying. A court had already ruled he was mentally ill and posed an imminent danger, but these findings simply weren't reported to the FBI's gun background check system. That is a travesty. The parents of those 32 murdered in Blacksburg, VA should be crying out for justice.

We should ensure that no gun sold in this country is sold to someone we know to be dangerous or who poses a direct threat to innocent Americans' lives. Today, an estimated 40 percent of all gun sales--some 6 million weapons a year--are sold by unlicensed dealers who aren't required to conduct any criminal background check under Federal law. This is how 12 students and 1 teacher were murdered at Columbine High School in Colorado, with guns bought from an unlicensed seller--no paperwork, no questions asked.

It is my hope, it is my prayer, that we will work to address this and many other complex but important issues in the coming weeks and months, and that we will consider all these proposals carefully and reach a balanced but effective solution.

I will apply the test of balance to find ways that we can continue to respect our traditions and protect constitutional liberties while still advancing our moral requirement to keep our kids and our communities safe.

As parents, we can't help but react with horror at the slaughter of innocent children in their classrooms. We all have to take time first to grieve with our families and our communities; but as policymakers, we also have a calling to react to the facts as we see them. And in this regard a reaction will have three stages: We need to reflect, we need to debate, and then we need to act.

The reflection and the debate have already begun. The action is still to come. I look forward to working with the Presiding Officer and my colleagues in the weeks and months ahead to ensure that this time we act. The victims of Newtown, CT, deserve nothing less.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I wish to honor the life and legacy of Peter N. Letang, Esq. For over 40 years, Mr. Letang was a prosecutor for the State of Delaware, a pioneer for justice who was respected and beloved by all those who had the pleasure to know him. Mr. Letang's courtroom achievements are numerous, from being instrumental in the State's first use of DNA for conviction, to handling many of the State's most highly publicized cases.

Peter was a Delaware legal powerhouse, but his courtroom achievements are only part of the man he was. He was a great friend, a tremendous storyteller and a warm and wonderful human being. It is my privilege to honor his achievements, his spirit and the tremendous impact he had on the State of Delaware.

Peter believed in our justice system, and he devoted his life to ensuring it worked for all Delawareans. Day in and day out, he approached every case with a positive attitude and a willingness to help. He took tremendous pride in his work and earned the respect of his peers through his long career as a deputy attorney general with the Delaware Department of Justice and chief New Castle county prosecutor.

Our thoughts are with the entire Letang family, including his wife Debra, their children Nick and Samantha, his sister Lisa and his nieces and nephews Carson, Cooper and Cutter. The State of Delaware lost a great citizen in Peter Letang, but his legacy will long be remembered.

Mr. President, I wish to commend Senator Murray before she leaves the floor for her tireless dedication to America's Armed Forces, for her commitment to our veterans and her passion for addressing their very real and very human needs, and for bringing examples from her home community as well as from our country at large of just how much we owe our veterans and in just how many different ways they face challenges as they try to move forward with their lives after their service for us. I wanted to thank her and recognize the Senator from Washington.

Mr. President, one of the best things about a good day in the Senate is when we get a chance to visit with friends from home. Earlier today, I had a chance to visit with the Hopkins family. They run a small business in Delaware. And I have had the great joy of spending time with our U.S. Congressman, John Carney, our incoming speaker of the house, Pete Schwarzkopf, and friend Quin Johnson today. All of this has brought to mind something I wanted to speak to for a moment, if I might.

I rise today to mark the 376th anniversary of a great American institution that is critical to our safety here and abroad--the National Guard.

The National Guard goes back to the citizen soldier tradition of our colonial-era militia of citizens who took up arms or who came together for collective action in times of natural disaster or of threat. The National Guard today, 376 years later, still has that dual mission--to serve our communities by responding to domestic emergencies and to deploy, when needed, to serve and protect our Nation overseas. While they do all this, they also often hold down full-time civilian jobs. In their daily lives, National Guard troops are teachers and police officers, firefighters and office workers. When called upon by their Governor or Commander in Chief, they change their uniforms and report for duty as civilian soldiers.

In my home State, our Delaware National Guard is on the front lines every day, whether keeping our streets safe after a storm, deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, or traveling to other parts of the country to help our citizens recover and cities rebuild in the wake of a natural disaster. Organized and managed so capably by Major General Frank Vavala, the Delaware National Guard has the capability to keep us safe. They transport people and supplies on land and through the air. They defend our Nation in cyber space. They support law enforcement's fight against illegal drugs. They are on the scene of any suspicious chemical or biological event, and they enable friendly forces to communicate with each other in war zones.

When duty calls, the Delaware National Guard is there. The 153rd Military Police Company, for example, was deployed to Iraq, where they logged hundreds of combat patrols on some of the most dangerous streets in the world and trained Iraqi police officers in all aspects of their profession. In January, this unit will deploy again, this time to Afghanistan.

The 126th Medical Aviation Battalion was deployed to Afghanistan, where they flew 400 priority medevac missions for over 500 critically injured patients, about half to unsecured landing zones outside of secure walls or fortified structures.

These are just two examples of the many ways the Delaware Guard protects our Nation overseas. But they are also vital to our security here at home. When there is a blizzard, the National Guard uses their humvees and heavy trucks to transport Delawareans with medical emergencies. When Superstorm Sandy struck last month, 120 soldiers traveled with heavy equipment to assist with recovery efforts in New York and New Jersey. When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, two C-130 aircraft left from New Castle airports the next day carrying the first of what would be 400 troops from Delaware who assisted with gulf coast recovery efforts.

The National Guard is resourceful, ready to serve, and they go everywhere they are called. These are truly citizen-soldiers.

When I was the county executive of New Castle County, Delaware, we had as many as seven different county employees at different times deployed overseas, many of them police officers called up for their National Guard service--folks who are the epitome of serving at home and serving abroad. So it is with a very personal sense of the needs and the challenges when I thank those employers who recognize that even when they are not at their desks, even when they are not contributing to their employer, our National Guard members are making a vital contribution to our community and to our country.

Tomorrow morning I am going to the Pentagon, where I will talk with leaders there about critical needs in an age of ongoing budget austerity. One of the priorities I am fighting for is a responsible investment in our National Guard. These heroes deserve more than our gratitude, they deserve our rock-solid commitment to ensuring they have the resources they need to do their jobs.

The National Guard plays a unique dual role in our security--as first responders and as a reserve force for foreign conflicts. We have to make sure they have the equipment and support for both their military missions and their domestic missions.

I am proud this year the President signed into law legislation that would give the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a seat at the table, a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I was glad to work to help build bipartisan support for this bill because I believe the Joint Chiefs need someone at the table who has seen the full capabilities and range of operations and the unique challenges and resources of the National Guard firsthand.

So 376 years after its founding, the National Guard continues to grow and evolve to meet the security challenges of the United States in the 21st century. I believe the Guard of the future must continue to fulfill both sides of their vital dual mission. Additionally, it must be a place where highly skilled soldiers and airmen can continue to serve their country while also working in and serving civilian communities. The Guard can and should be a bridge between the military and civilian response to threats facing the United States, not the least of which are cyber attacks and terrorism.

On this anniversary, the National Guard remains essential to the safety and security of Americans at home and abroad, and today I would like to thank the soldiers and airmen of the Delaware National Guard as well as the entire National Guard family at home and abroad for their service and dedication to our country. Thank you, and happy birthday.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague, Senator Paul, to discuss the life and work of an exceptional American, Dr. Sandy Greenberg, who is here with us today, along with his wife Sue and his sister Brenda.

Sandy, in my view, is an honorary Delawarean because he spends a month every year at one of our most beautiful beaches, Rehoboth Beach. But he is much more than that. A successful businessman and philanthropist, Sandy has a wide variety of interests and life experiences. He has founded and run software and technology companies, he is a pioneer in the use of technology in medicine, and helped bring telemedicine to rural health care facilities as chairman of the Rural Health Care Corporation.

He was appointed by President Clinton to the Board of the National Science Foundation. As a young man he took a break from his studies at Columbia, where he roomed with Art Garfunkel--a well-known musician--to work as a fellow in Lyndon Johnson's office.

All of this on its own merits would make for a life well-lived and a substantive, meaningful contribution to our country. But there is one thing I have not yet mentioned. At the young age of 19, Sandy went blind. He lost his sight, and with that all likely hope of the successful completion of his college career or a successful career in life. He was told by the social workers who met with him after glaucoma stole his sight from him that his future would likely consist of assembling screwdriver kits in a sheltered workshop in his hometown in upstate New York.

But because of the kindness and the intervention of his roommates-- Art Garfunkel and Jerry Spire--and others who volunteered--Marc Mukasey--who dedicated countless hours reading to him, he was able to finish his class work, to be successful in completing his studies at Columbia, and then to go on to Harvard Law School and to Oxford, and then to go further and further.

He has lived his entire adult life and achieved a career most of us can only dream of while also plunged in darkness. His exceptional courage and his perseverance don't end there. Today he wants to serve others and catalyze a transformative shift in the health of our Nation by ending blindness by the end of this decade.

Is this outrageous? Is this audacious? Maybe. But that is what experts said when President Kennedy stood before this Congress--in the same year, 1961, that Sandy lost his sight--and challenged our Nation to put a man on the Moon by the end of that decade. The best and brightest minds, the top scientists and researchers of Kennedy's generation rose to that challenge and achieved his impossible dream. Now, for this generation, Sandy and his wife Sue have once again raised our sights and challenged the best scientific and medical researchers in the world to rise to an enormous challenge--a challenge that has been with us from the beginning of mankind.

In the Bible itself we hear of blindness, of people who could not see with their eyes but only their hearts. For millennia, humanity has struggled to understand and overcome blindness. Yet today we have the scientific tools necessary to reach for a cure--to restore the physical sight so many of us take for granted to those who otherwise live in darkness; to bring to life the 39 million people in this world who live without sight, many in the world's poorest countries, at a time when experts already believe 80 percent of blindness can be prevented or cured.

We know we can do it. Just think of what an awe-inspiring accomplishment this would be, what a triumph of the human mind, of individual initiative, of collaborative efforts of the scientific method, of modern technology, and of our investment in the belief that America can and should be a world leader in curing the diseases that have ailed humanity for generations.

Mr. President, a majority of all research scientists in human history are alive today. That remarkable fact alone carries with it great potential. That is why Sandy and his wife Sue created the Prize to End Blindness by 2020, to take advantage of this incredible historic opportunity to bring together scientists and researchers and end blindness by the end of this decade. To inspire them, the Greenbergs have provided a prize of more than $2 million in gold. Why gold? Well, it is a reminder of the color of the beautiful shimmering sunsets Sandy and Susan enjoyed together in the waning days of Sandy's sightedness, and it is a reminder of the beauty of the challenge of a prize to restore sight to millions who live in blindness.

Mr. President, I am no expert on the health or science of the eye, but we are blessed to have in this Senate two Members who are. We had some supportive comments that will be given by Senator Boozman of Arkansas, but I am particularly glad and honored to be joined today by Senator Paul, by Dr. Paul, who is not only a tireless advocate for the people of Kentucky, but who, by professional training and background, is an ophthalmologist.

I yield the floor at this time.

I thank Senator Paul. I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from Kentucky.

Mr. President, it certainly hasn't escaped the expert knowledge of my colleagues here today that 2020--the date of the prize of Sue and Sandy whom we have spoken about--is also the numerical indication of perfect vision. So the goal to end blindness by 2020-- which is what the Sandy and Sue Greenberg prize is calling us toward-- is also a year on the calendar, a year just over 7 years away. In those 7 years, Sandy Greenberg has the courage, the audacity, the strength to believe we can end blindness, working together, by 2020. It is a goal that could transform our society, our world, and the lives of millions who live in darkness today. We can do it.

At earlier times in our history, as Senator Paul has just reflected, we have come together in response to audacious goals or inspiring prizes to conquer other debilitating diseases. One that Sandy Greenberg shared with me when we sat together and first talked about this was polio, a crippling disease that struck terror into the hearts of parents every summer.

Dr. Jonas Salk convinced medical researchers at charities such as the March of Dimes to instead turn their focus from treatment, with devices such as the iron lung, to ending the disease itself. Because of that kind of forward thinking, polio has now been largely eradicated and does not threaten children in the United States, although it remains in a few isolated outposts around the world.

We can see even more cutting-edge examples today in my home State of Delaware. Just earlier this week, I met with scientific researchers Dr. Kmiec from Delaware State University and the leaders of a company called Orthogenics, who are taking on the audacious goal of ending sickle cell anemia. That particular effort--banishing this disease from bodies around the world through research and development--is something supported by public-private partnership.

In the end, private contributions, extraordinary generosity by Sandy and Sue Greenberg and his family, are critically important.

I happen to believe there is also a vital role for a partnership with the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, and others that have the unique ability to bring researchers together, hopefully for efficient and effective advances in medicine.

To continue the citations of the great disability rights advocate Helen Keller: ``Alone, we can do little; together, we can do so much.''

Even in this era of austerity, these times of budget crunching and belt-tightening, in my view there are few areas more important for our sustained investment than the development of treatments and cures for a devastating, life-changing health condition such as blindness.

In my view, there is also a pressing economic element to this humanitarian equation. Economists have said that most of the new wealth created in this country in the last century came from biomedical research and its application to fighting and changing the human condition. They have told us that curing and treating ancient diseases and conditions is a lot of what has driven the extraordinary economic growth of this country in the last century.

We know that when we as a nation invest in making possible cutting- edge advances, interconnected networks of learning make possible the next gigantic leap. I am so grateful to Sue and Sandy for making possible this challenge, for putting out this pot of gold to literally lift the sights of teams all over the world, of individuals, of communities of effort. It is an effort that could literally bring sight to the blind.

Senator Paul, any closing thoughts?

I thank, Senator Paul. I, like the Senator, am confident that some great good will come out of this bold vision, out of this clear initiative.

As we look forward at the health care debates that have raged throughout this Chamber and this country in the last few years, I will simply say in closing, as we look to the future of the United States, there is a path forward that says the right way to deal with skyrocketing health care costs and the fiscal challenges they provide is to simply crunch down, to limit, to narrow, to cut off access, and to manage downward.

A competing and I think a more compelling and I think, frankly, a more American view is we should take bold risks. We should innovate. We should dare to speak of curing diseases that are immensely harmful and expenses that are challenges and burdens for our whole country and the world.

This prize--this challenge from Sue and Sandy Greenberg--is something I think should lift the sights of all of us in this country to the very real possibilities of working together to find exceptional cures.

I thank the Presiding Officer for letting us speak about this extraordinary American, his wife and his family and his quest to end blindness by the end of this decade.

I urge anyone interested in this topic and interested in working with us further to visit the Web site endblindnessby2020.com. I thank Sandy and Sue Greenberg for their courage, their perseverance, and their commitment to bringing light to millions of their fellow men and women around the globe.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 6 p.m., with all the provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3783, which was received from the House.

I ask unanimous consent that the Rubio amendment No. 3334 at the desk be agreed to.

I know of no further debate on this measure and ask that the bill be read for a third time and that the Senate proceed to a vote.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill read a third time.

The bill was read the third time.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. 3677, introduced earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening

action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 614, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any related statements be printed in the Record.