Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Preparedness and Resilience Foundation Act, which establishes an independent non-profit public charity that acts as a philanthropic intermediary between the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and the private sector. The lack of appropriate mechanisms make it difficult for FEMA to receive disaster related funds from private sector entities. The Preparedness and Resilience Foundation is intended to bridge this gap and improve the collaboration and coordination between FEMA and private sector entities. The unique roles that both the private and public sectors play is critical not only to the leveraging of private and public resources, but to the development of capacity and innovation models that will improve America's preparedness and resilience to an ever-increasing world of complexity, challenges and dangers both natural and man-made.

The measure will allow FEMA to support and carry out activities that promote the resilience of individuals, communities, structures, and systems against natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and other human caused disasters. Further, the bill would build and

sustain the capabilities of the public, private, and civic sectors to work together to prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all such hazards.

Among other things, the proposed Preparedness and Resilience Foundation would function as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit private corporation, and not as an agency or instrument of the Federal Government. The Foundation would establish an Endowment Fund consisting of donations from non-federal entities or assets, to provide endowments and grants, and to carry out its mission, and preparedness and resilience activities. The proposed measure requires a seven-person Board of Directors, whose sole responsibility would be to run the Foundation, including management of its employees, and the administering of donations to the Foundation. This legislation requires annual performance evaluations of the Foundation.

The Preparedness and Resilience Foundation Act is modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, Foundation. The CDC Foundation has become not only self-reliant to fund its activities, but also generates millions of dollars every year to operate and award grants to programs that help the agency meet its stated goals. I believe similar achievements can be made under the Preparedness and Resilience Foundation Act. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to support this measure, and to bring positive change and innovation to disaster management in America.

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

Madam President, this amendment would lower the nondefense discretionary cap established by the Budget Control Act by $11 billion to offset transfers from the general fund necessary to replenish the highway trust fund. This amendment is in clear violation of the Budget Control Act we just agreed to 6 months ago. In the simplest terms, the amendment would impose a 2-percent cut to nondefense discretionary spending in order to pay for a shortfall in mandatory spending. I would suggest if you want an offset for mandatory spending, find a mandatory offset.

However, the pending amendment deals with matters within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction; therefore, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Madam President, the amendment of the junior Senator from Tennessee would lower the nondefense discretionary cap established in the Budget Control Act by $20 billion in order to offset transfers from the general fund necessary to replenish the highway trust fund. This amendment is a clear violation of the Budget Control Act we agreed on less than a year ago. In simple terms, the amendment would impose a 4- percent cut to nondefense discretionary spending in order to pay for a shortfall in mandatory spending.

I wish to remind my colleagues that discretionary spending will rise at a rate less than the rate of inflation over the next decade, and that is according to CBO. Mandatory spending, on the other hand, is slated to rise at three times the rate of inflation. Clearly, if there is a desire to offset one area of mandatory spending, the place to find such an offset should be on the very same mandatory side of the spending ledger.

In an op-ed published in the Washington Post yesterday, Senator Corker said that finding an offset for the highway trust fund was a small step toward fiscal responsibility and that we should all support this amendment. But in the opening portion of the editorial, the Senator noted the solid bipartisan support in the Senate for a balanced approach to real deficit reduction. This balanced approach would include revenues, mandatory spending, and discretionary spending.

I agree with the Senator that only a balanced approach would truly solve our long-term challenges. Yet, in this amendment, what do we find? Cuts. Nothing but cuts to nondefense discretionary spending. No revenues, no mandatory spending, just the same approach we have seen again and again from our Republican colleagues--cut discretionary now, and we will do other things at a time to be determined later. Even the Ryan budget did nothing to Social Security or Medicare for 10 years. But the cuts to discretionary spending and to Medicaid Programs that save the lives of hundreds of thousands of elderly and children living in poverty took effect immediately, not in 10 years. And that is the approach of this amendment.

Clearly, there was an opportunity here to present a balanced approach. The Senator could have proposed modest cuts to spending, with increased revenue and changes in the rules that would lead to a fully funded highway trust fund for years to come. But that would require hard work and compromise, and this amendment requires neither.

Across-the-board cuts to discretionary spending are easy. This amendment is one page. Change one number, and that is it--we can all go home and say what a great job we have done cutting down. But the truth is, when it comes time to implement these cuts, agencies will be forced to look at reductions in force, at deferring desperately needed maintenance and repairs, and if you were considering upgrading your technology to better serve the American people, you can forget about it. Four percent is no small matter, coming on top of flat budgets for the past 2 years and with no increase for inflation or population growth.

As with so many amendments we have seen this past year, nondefense spending is again targeted not because it is good policy but because it is an easy policy. As I have done on each of these past occasions, I once again urge my colleagues to reject these unreasonable and reckless cuts and to vote no on the Corker amendment.

Madam President, if I may, I would like to speak on another amendment.

Amendment No. 1738

Madam President, in September of 2011, this Senate rejected an amendment very similar to the one offered today by the junior Senator from Oklahoma. At that time, Members saw this amendment as a backdoor attempt to remove more from discretionary accounts than had been agreed through the deficit reduction deal. Nothing has changed in the intervening 6 months, and we should again reject this amendment for the same reason: It violates

the deficit reduction agreement reached last fall.

Senator Coburn claims that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce duplicative programs. In reality, the amendment would require a $10 billion reduction in existing discretionary caps regardless of whether there is actually $10 billion in discretionary savings from consolidating duplicative programs that can be identified only by the OMB. Further, the $10 billion figure is completely arbitrary and almost certainly will not be reached. In fact, there is no methodology or specificity that verifies that there is, in fact, $10 billion in discretionary savings to be found.

The Senator's amendment cites two reports from the Government Accountability Office--the GAO--on how programs that may be duplicative or somewhat duplicative could be streamlined or eliminated. What the Senator fails to mention is that the GAO, in its recent report, notes that on 81 issues it raised last year, the Congress or the executive branch has begun to respond to all but 17 of the issues raised. This amendment also ignores the fact that the majority of the items on which no action has been taken are unrelated to discretionary spending but cover revenues and mandatory spending.

Moreover, in reviewing the details of the tens of billions that GAO indicates might be saved by eliminating duplication, it is apparent in those areas in which GAO has provided somewhat auditable estimates that the bulk of the savings are in three categories. These categories are raising revenues, cutting mandatory spending, and cutting defense. For example, 18 recommendations in 2 reports would come by cutting defense programs, including military retirement, health care, and military compensation. Furthermore, $2.5 billion in annual savings would come from Social Security and at least $10 billion from eliminating tax expenditures or making other changes to the Tax Code.

Madam President, my colleagues on the other side have not demonstrated any zeal for cutting defense or raising revenues. Frankly, neither side has expressed much willingness to cut mandatory spending. Instead of targeting tax increases or mandatory spending, this amendment once again goes after the easy target, which is domestic discretionary spending--the same target that is attacked time after time even though it only represents 15 percent of Federal spending.

So we have once again an amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma which has become a familiar pattern in the Senate. On its face, the amendment might seem to have some value, but the details of the amendment show that the amendment is a Trojan horse--a disguise with a goal of indiscriminate cutting of discretionary spending without any real base or justification. In other words, this is simply another attempt to circumvent the deal we reached less than a year ago on spending cuts for fiscal year 2013. Understanding that Senator Coburn doesn't believe those cuts went deep enough into discretionary spending, I and many of my colleagues believe they went too far. But in the end, a deal is a deal. We must honor the agreement reached by leadership and signed into law by the President. Is it really in the best interests of the American people or this institution to force vote after vote on discretionary spending levels because one side did not get everything they wanted in the Budget Control Act?

Clearly, the duplicate programs targeted in this amendment are merely the frosting on the cake of spending cuts to any number of programs of which the Senator does not approve. But let's be clear--the objective here is not better government, it is cutting discretionary funding to programs that Congress supports, hiding under the guise of good government.

Setting aside the real intent of this amendment, the irony of the Coburn amendment is that the amendment itself is redundant and duplicative of existing rescission authority which has been in the law since 1974, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This act has been successful in addressing this very situation.

Setting aside this irony, the problem with this amendment is that by circumventing a well-thought-out process that recognizes the checks and balances between the executive branch and the legislative branch, it simply turns over all decisionmaking in terms of which programs are duplicative to the Office of Management and Budget with absolutely no deference to Congress and the programs authorized by Congress.

The Senator from Oklahoma is constant in his efforts to weaken Congress's power by shifting our responsibilities to the executive branch, and I will remain constant in pointing out to my colleagues why this is a bad idea. The power of the purse is the single most important check on the power of the executive branch. Every time we chip away at that power, we chip away at the Founding Fathers' vision of how our government should operate. In addition, we are also disregarding our accountability to the American public. The Congress should be held accountable for the tax dollars we appropriate and the tax dollars we rescind.

In closing, we should reject this amendment because it makes no sense to reinvent the wheel--and in this case, an inferior one--when we are trying to address duplication in government missions. And we should reject it because it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Budget Control Act which was signed into law just 8 months ago. Finally, we should oppose this amendment because it fails to attack the real culprits of our economic woes--revenues and mandatory spending. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Coburn amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, last September we rightly rejected a Coburn amendment not much different from this one. Senator Coburn claims that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce duplication, but in reality it would just give a $10 billion reduction in discretionary caps regardless of whether there actually is $10 billion in discretionary savings. In addition, there is an existing rescission authority in place, thus making this amendment on reducing duplication redundant.

This amendment is a backdoor attempt to lower discretionary spending caps agreed to by the Budget Control Act. So we should not violate the BCA, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words of tribute today on behalf of my friend Admiral Dick Camacho, on the occasion of his retirement from the private sector.

Admiral Camacho's ties to Hawaii go back to the 1870s, when his family emigrated from the Azores and began working on coffee and plantations on the Big Island and Oahu, respectively. His father went through the machinist apprentice program at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and was working there as a supervisor when it was attacked on December 7, 1941. Then eight-year-old Dick Camacho waited for two days before hearing from his father that he was okay and had been working around the clock putting out fires and assessing the damage from the attack.

Dick left the Islands to attend the University of New Mexico via the Naval Reserve Officers program where he graduated with a degree in Naval Engineering. He did post-graduate work in Electrical Engineering at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey and later completed Harvard Business School's Management Development Program.

Dick began his distinguished naval career as a junior officer on the USS Requisite in about as different a climate as he could find from Hawaii. The ship was deployed to the Arctic to engage on a mapping and survey mission. From there he was ordered to Submarine School in Connecticut.

After graduating from Submarine School, Dick returned to Hawaii to serve as an officer aboard the USS Gudgeon, which was home-ported at Pearl Harbor. Admiral Camacho distinguished himself as a leader and was promoted. The Navy also increased his responsibilities, sending him to Naval Sea Systems Command, Submarine Forces Atlantic, Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and Charleston Naval Shipyard where he served as the Shipyard Commander.

In 1984, Dick became the first son of Hawaii to assume command of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. I had the pleasure of attending a welcome home reception for Dick and his wife, Norma Jean, where over 1,000 people were present, including members of Hawaii's Congressional delegation and local government representatives. Dick was promoted to Rear Admiral in 1985 and given the additional responsibilities of serving as the Supervisor of Shipbuilding and Commander of Naval Sea Systems West until his retirement in 1986.

Embarking on his private sector career, Dick took a position with a San Diego-based company involved in the repair and modernization of Navy vessels. During this second career, which saw him open numerous shipyards around the country, Dick always stayed close to Hawaii. He returned many times and led the effort to revitalize the State's private sector ship repair business. He convinced his company to purchase a local shipyard and make significant investments in the facility through workforce training and equipment and an unparalleled commitment to workplace safety.

Both the public and private sector owe a great deal to Admiral Dick Camacho and his amazing wife, Norma Jean. Hawaii is a better place for the contributions of these two wonderful people. I wish them both fair winds and following seas.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak against the Toomey amendment that would impose a permanent ban on congressional initiatives or earmarks.

The Constitution grants to the Congress the power of the purse. There is no authority more vital to the separation of powers than the one that prevents the executive branch from directly spending the tax dollars collected from its citizens. Depriving the Congress of the ability to direct money to specific projects does not save money or reduce the deficit; it simply gives additional power to the President and weakens the legislative branch.

As I stated when I announced the initial moratorium on appropriations earmarks last February, I continue to support the constitutional right of Members of Congress to direct investments to their States and districts under the fiscally responsible and transparent earmarking process we have established.

Hawaii is a long way from the Capital City. It is simply not possible for a bureaucrat here in Washington to understand the needs of my home State as well as I do. And I believe such is the case with all 50 States. Each one is unique, each one has individual challenges, and each one has issues that cannot be fully understood by civil servants located thousands of miles away.

This amendment has nothing to do with lowering the deficit. Let me state that again. Eliminating earmarks will not save a single penny in spending. It will simply take decisions that were rightfully made by Congress and delegate them to the executive branch.

In truth, this is a political amendment meant to give cover to those who seek to mislead the American people into thinking earmarks are responsible for our current deficit, and that simply is not the case. Our deficit is driven by entitlement spending that is rising at a rate three times that of inflation, not by discretionary spending that is now capped at less than the rate of inflation. Our deficit is driven by the fact that revenues are at their lowest level in 50 years. A permanent ban on earmarks addresses neither of these matters.

Madam President, finally, I note for my colleagues that the voluntary moratorium in appropriations bills for fiscal year 2012 was 100 percent successful, and the committee will continue the moratorium for fiscal year 2013. Prior to the moratorium taking effect, the Appropriations Committee had to put into place a series of reforms that ensured openness and transparency for earmark requests. Every earmark request was posted online. Every earmark that was approved was listed along with the sponsor's name in committee reports and posted online. There were no secrets and no backroom deals.

The reality is that without congressional earmarks, we find ourselves at the mercy of the bureaucrats to ensure that our local needs are fulfilled. If we approve this amendment, from now on earmarks will be at the sole discretion of the executive branch. Local needs will either go unmet or will be included through deals made between our elected officials and the White House or unelected bureaucrats. No longer will we show the American people what earmarks we are funding and why. Instead, they will be part of a tradeoff between Members and bureaucrats--a bridge in return for support of a trade agreement.

By permanently banning earmarks, the spending decisions will move from the transparent process to discussions that are hidden from the public. So we face a choice between an open and transparent method for allocating targeted funding or one that will be done with phone calls, conversations, winks,

and nods. One method allows for accountability and another leaves us all at the whim of unelected bureaucrats.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Toomey amendment. This amendment will serve to deprive the Congress of essential congressional prerogatives. It has no impact on the debt, and it is simply designed to give political cover to those who refuse to address the core drivers of our fiscal imbalance--lack of revenues and ever-increasing entitlement spending.

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

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

Madam President, on behalf of the Leader, I ask unanimous consent that any time spent in quorum calls be equally divided between the two sides.

I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this amendment does not save any money. It does not reduce the deficit. It simply gives additional power to the President and thereby weakens the legislative branch.

The reality is that without these earmarks, we find ourselves at the mercy of bureaucrats to ensure that our local needs are fulfilled. No one in this Chamber believes that a bureaucrat here in Washington knows better or understands the needs of their home State as well as they do.

So I say again, Madam President, the voluntary moratorium is now 100 percent successful. It will continue in fiscal year 2013.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Toomey amendment.

Mr. President, every so often, it is my honor as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to recognize the outstanding contributions of members of the Senate family. As anyone who has spent a few years in Washington will know, public service may not be the career of choice for those who hope to be appreciated in their own time.

Benjamin Franklin recognized this back in 1772, when he wrote:

We must not in the course of public life expect immediate

approbation and immediate grateful acknowledgement of our

services. But let us persevere through abuse and even injury.

The internal satisfaction of a good conscience is always

present, and time will do us justice in the minds of the

people . . .

Mr. President, through his 20 years of service in the U.S. Senate, Gary Reese is an exception to Mr. Franklin's rule. His charm, his expertise, and his professionalism have earned Gary the respect and appreciation of Senators, leaders in the executive branch, and his colleagues.

Gary's service in the Senate began in 1987, when he joined the staff of Senator Bennett Johnston as a legislative assistant for military issues. In 6 years of service, Gary demonstrated a great ability to get results for the State of Louisiana and distinguished himself by developing a thorough understanding of the shipbuilding industry. Gary then moved to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 1993, where he developed expertise in some of the most technical and important aspects of our national security.

The Committee on Appropriations was extremely fortunate to lure Gary away from that prestigious committee in January 1997. As a professional staff member on the Subcommittee on Defense, Gary excelled in oversight of acquisition programs in each of the military services, as well as classified matters. Gary departed the Senate in 2002, at which time his accomplishments were recognized by the Department of the Navy with the Meritorious Public Service Award and by the National Reconnaissance Office with the Gold Medal for Distinguished Service.

After 5 years with General Electric, Gary once again answered the call to public service. He rejoined the Committee on Appropriations in 2007, where he has applied his skills to the most challenging intelligence issues that our country has faced in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and the Asia-Pacific. His vision and ingenuity have made substantial contributions to our policies and operations in those regions, for which I hope the full story may someday be told.

Listing Gary Reese's accomplishments during his two decades of service to the U.S. Senate tells only a small part of his story. In an era of partisanship and divisiveness, Gary served both Democrats and Republicans with skill and dedication. I feel just as fortunate to have had Gary's assistance as my friend and former colleague, Ted Stevens, surely did.

In a capital city filled with bluster and ego, Gary's charm, humor, and integrity built trusted relationships in many corners of the Congress, the executive branch, and industry.

In a job where long hours and late nights can overwhelm even the most industrious public servant, Gary has never forgotten his dedication and commitment to his wife Ann, their son Bob, and their daughter Trish.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and all the staff of the Committee on Appropriations, I wish to offer Gary and his family my appreciation for his 20 years of service to the Senate, and I wish him all the best on his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a great American and a true military visionary who has humbly served our country for close to 40 years in the Navy Nurse Corps, both Active and Reserve components: RADM Karen A. Flaherty. A native of Winsted, CT, she joined the U.S. Navy as a Nurse Corps candidate in July 1973. Upon graduation from Skidmore College, she attended Officer Indoctrination School in Newport, RI, in August 1974.

Admiral Flaherty's first assignment was Quantico Naval Hospital, where she served as a staff nurse and charge nurse of the Surgical Ward, Orthopedic Ward, and the Maximum Care Unit. Upon transfer to the Philadelphia Naval Medical Center in 1977, she assumed the duties as charge nurse for the General Surgery Unit and the Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic. Admiral Flaherty reported for duty as the officer programs officer for Naval Recruiting Command, Navy Recruiting District New Jersey in 1979. She transitioned to the Naval Reserve in 1982.

Admiral Flaherty's subsequent reserve tours included assignments to numerous naval hospitals and fleet hospital commands. In her distinguished career she has served as commanding officer, Fleet Hospital, Fort Dix, executive officer, director of nursing services, officer-in-charge, and training officer. In February 1991, she was recalled to serve with Fleet Hospital 15, Al Jubail, Saudi Arabia, in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm. She served as commanding officer of the OPNAV 093 Reserve Unit prior to assuming Flag duties as the Deputy Commander Force Integration National Capital Area and the deputy chief for health care operations at the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. In each assignment, she excelled and overcame every challenge and was rewarded with greater responsibility and opportunities.

Admiral Flaherty has served at the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery as the deputy surgeon general, deputy chief, wounded, ill, and injured, and the 22nd director of the Navy Nurse Corps. Her visionary leadership and executive management skills have played vital roles in forging new frontiers between the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the private sector to improve care for sailors, marines, veterans, and their families.

Admiral Flaherty received her master of science degree from the University of Pennsylvania and has held senior executive leadership positions at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, PA, St. Francis Hospital in Wilmington, DE, and the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Philadelphia, PA.

Admiral Flaherty's career has encompassed the full spectrum of public, private, academic, and military service. Focusing on quality, access, and reliability of wounded warrior care, she is the embodiment of joint, interagency, academic, public, and private collaboration. Through far-reaching vision, dedication, and inspired leadership she improved health care operations across Navy Medicine and built relationships between Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Health Systems. Her sustained performance reflects greatly on herself, the Department of Defense, and the United States of America. I extend my deepest appreciation on behalf of a grateful nation for her dedicated military service. Rear Admiral Flaherty, on the occasion of your retirement, I congratulate and thank you for your service.

Mr. President, the omnibus bill the Senate considers this morning represents a victory for compromise, a victory for American taxpayers, and a victory for the appropriations process.

The measure before us funds everything from our men and women in uniform to students who strive to improve their future through higher education, from environmental protection to protecting our children from harmful products, and from homeland security to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

With the exception of the Department of Defense, all these agencies have been running on a continuing resolution for well over a year. Mr. President, this must stop because it is no way to run a government, particularly one that must learn to do more with less. How can an agency be more efficient when it is operating under budget plans that were developed 2 or even 3 years ago?

Last year, the Congress enacted only one appropriations measure--the Defense bill. This year, we have passed a minibus containing three bills, and we are now considering the final package incorporating the nine remaining bills. While it is true we again fall short of regular order, it is also true, if the Senate passes this measure and the President signs it into law, we will have succeeded in enacting each of our bills prior to the end of the calendar year for the first time since 2009.

I would note for my colleagues that in the Senate, the Appropriations Committee reported 11 bills, 9 of them with overwhelming bipartisan support, and by that I mean 30 to 0 or 29 to 1. We moved four of our bills across the Senate floor with an opportunity for every Senator to provide amendments. We accomplish all of this at a time when partisanship is high and the desire by some to delay even the most innocuous of bills has made it difficult to get any measure to the President.

As chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss this portion of the bill.

The Omnibus appropriations bill includes $633.3 billion for the Department of Defense. This amount includes a $20.8 billion reduction from the President's request for the base defense budget and a reduction of $2.5 billion from the overseas contingency operations request.

Although these substantial reductions in the defense budget mean many tough decisions had to be made, I wish to assure my colleagues that all recommendations in the Defense bill were made in a fully bipartisan, bicameral manner.

Most importantly, let me assure my colleagues this agreement takes care of our men and women in uniform and their families, fully supports military readiness, protects the forces, and maintains our technological edge. It complies with the earmark moratorium and contains no congressionally directed spending items.

At the same time, it reins in defense spending and takes important steps to improve the Department's fiscal accountability. The conference agreement recommends 775 reductions to individual programs primarily due to program terminations or delays or changes to policies of programs since the submission of the budget 10 months ago.

As the chairman of the full committee, I am proud of the work done on these nine bills by the Appropriations Committee, its members, and its staff, each of whom have worked diligently late into the night for many months to arrive to this point. All of the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members should be recognized for their leadership and achievement in completing these nine remaining bills.

I also wish to recognize the dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle for their months of effort and their commitment to completing their individual bills.

Mr. President, this is a strong, bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes and send it to the President for his signature.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this Omnibus appropriations bill represents a victory for compromise, a victory for American taxpayers, and a victory for bipartisanship. It is fiscally responsible and it provides the necessary guidance to our agencies so they will be able to fulfill their vital missions on behalf of the American people. It meets every requirement of the Budget Control Act and contains not a single earmark; 149 Democrats and 147 Republicans voted in favor of this bill yesterday. Clearly it is a strong bipartisan bill and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate LTG Patricia D. Horoho on becoming the U.S. Army's 43rd Surgeon General. This is a momentous time for military medicine, with two historic firsts for the U.S. Army and for the Department of Defense. On December 5, 2011, General Horoho became the first woman and the first nurse to assume command of the U.S. Army's Medical Command. Then, just 2 days later, she became the Army's 43rd Army Surgeon General, making history again by becoming the

first woman and the first nurse in the Department of Defense to be sworn in as Surgeon General.

Lieutenant General Horoho earned her bachelor of science degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1982. She received her master of science degree as a clinical trauma nurse specialist from the University of Pittsburgh. Her military education includes graduating from the Army's Command and General Staff College and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, where she earned a second master of science degree in national resource strategy.

Lieutenant General Horoho has earned numerous civilian and military awards and recognitions throughout her distinguished career. Her civilian accolades include recognition in 1993 as one of the top 100 nurses in the State of North Carolina. She was selected as the USO's Woman of the Year in 2009. Most recently, the University of North Carolina School of Nursing selected her as the Alumna of the Year on November 30, 2011.

Some of Lieutenant General Horoho's previous military assignments include Deputy Surgeon General; Chief of the Army Nurse Corps; Commander of the Western Regional Medical Command in Fort Lewis, WA; Commander of the Madigan Army Medical Center in Tacoma, WA; Commander of the Walter Reed Health Care System in Washington, DC.; and Commander of the DeWitt Health Care Network in Fort Belvoir, VA.

Lieutenant General Horoho brings extensive leadership, education, and experience to her new position as the 43rd Army Surgeon General. I applaud the many accomplishments which have brought her to the highest level of rank and responsibility in military medicine, and I wish her success as she begins her new position.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pirate Fishing Elimination Act, a bill to implement the international Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated, IUU, Fishing as adopted by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in November of 2009. The agreement is the first binding global instrument focused specifically on combating IUU, also known as pirate fishing, and the United States was a primary participant in its negotiation and was one of its first signatories.

Pirate fishing is a global problem that threatens healthy ocean ecosystems and sustainable fisheries both here and abroad. It is estimated that annual lost revenues from pirate fishing activities may be as much as $23 billion worldwide and that as much as 40 percent of the total catch for some fish stocks is caught illegally. The impacts of these activities are felt throughout the fishery supply chain, from the fisherman through the consumer, and affect food security and socio- economic stability in many parts of the world. This includes the United States where our own sustainable domestic fisheries may be undermined through unfair competition with illegally caught international product.

The Pirate Fishing Elimination Act, and the underlying international agreement, would combat this threat by establishing an inspection regime that would raise global standards for access to seafood markets to levels similar to those that we set here in the U.S. It would also explicitly prohibit known pirate fishing vessels from entering our ports and from introducing their tainted goods to our healthy seafood supply chain. As the world's third largest seafood importer, our actions can make a real difference by dramatically increasing the risks and costs associated with pirate fishing. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this crucial legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pirate Fishing Elimination Act, a bill to implement the international Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated, IUU, Fishing as adopted by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in November of 2009. The agreement is the first binding global instrument focused specifically on combating IUU, also known as pirate fishing, and the United States was a primary participant in its negotiation and was one of its first signatories.

Pirate fishing is a global problem that threatens healthy ocean ecosystems and sustainable fisheries both here and abroad. It is estimated that annual lost revenues from pirate fishing activities may be as much as $23 billion worldwide and that as much as 40 percent of the total catch for some fish stocks is caught illegally. The impacts of these activities are felt throughout the fishery supply chain, from the fisherman through the consumer, and affect food security and socio- economic stability in many parts of the world. This includes the United States where our own sustainable domestic fisheries may be undermined through unfair competition with illegally caught international product.

The Pirate Fishing Elimination Act, and the underlying international agreement, would combat this threat by establishing an inspection regime that would raise global standards for access to seafood markets to levels similar to those that we set here in the U.S. It would also explicitly prohibit known pirate fishing vessels from entering our ports and from introducing their tainted goods to our healthy seafood supply chain. As the world's third largest seafood importer, our actions can make a real difference by dramatically increasing the risks and costs associated with pirate fishing. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this crucial legislation.

Mr. President, today is December 7, 2011. Seventy years ago, something happened in Pearl Harbor. I shall never forget that day because it was a Sunday, and, as were many Americans, I was preparing to go to church. I was putting on my necktie and having a good time listening to delightful Hawaiian music. Suddenly, at about this time-- 1:55 p.m. here--the disc jockey in charge of that program began screaming, yelling into the mike. He was saying: ``The Japanese are bombing Pearl Harbor!'' He kept on repeating that. For a moment, I thought it was a repeat or replay of Orson Welles, which my colleagues will recall was the program that was a mighty hit in the United States.

The disc jockey kept on doing this for about 5 minutes--no music, just screaming--so I decided to take my father out on the street and look toward Pearl Harbor. We could see these black puffs, and then we knew what was happening. Suddenly, while watching these black puffs of explosions, we could hear a rumble just overhead, and there were three aircraft. They were pearl gray in color, and they had red dots on the wings. I knew what was happening, and I thought the world had just come to an end. Just about 2,400 American sailors and soldiers and noncombatants died that morning.

I was a young man of 17 at that time, but I was also a volunteer medical aid man. We had a little aid station--a temporary one--set up by the elementary school called Lunalilo. So I rushed there to respond to the call of duty, and I stayed there for about a week taking care of the wounded and the dead, because we also maintained a morgue on the school premises.

I became familiar with the cost of war--not the full cost, but I knew what was happening. The war was much more than just blood and guts. We have an extraordinary Constitution. We have an extraordinary set of laws. But throughout the history of mankind--not just the history of the United States but the history of mankind--war has always provided some justification for leaders to set aside these laws. For example, on just about Christmas Eve of 1941, about 3 weeks after December 7, the U.S. Government made a decision, and that decision was to provide a new designation for all Japanese residing in the United States. Citizens and noncitizens, such as my father, were given the new designation, which was 4-C.

As the Presiding Officer knows, 1-A means you are physically fit, mentally alert, and you can put on a uniform; 4-F means something is wrong with you; and 4-C is the designation for an ``enemy alien.'' Just imagine that--an enemy alien. This was used as one of the justifications to round up over 120,000 Japanese, most of them Americans of Japanese ancestry, and place them into these internment camps. There were 10 of them throughout the United States in very desolate areas--Arkansas, Arizona, Utah, out in the deserts. Their crime was they were ``enemy aliens.'' None of them had committed any crime. Investigation after investigation disclosed that. No sabotage, no espionage, no assault--nothing. They were rounded up and placed into these camps, which were described by our government as concentration camps. Yes, it was unconstitutional, but our leaders felt the war was a justification to set aside the Constitution and set aside the laws.

Well, many of us--especially the young ones--were very eager to demonstrate to our neighbors and to our government that we were loyal, that we wanted to do our part in this war, and, if necessary, put our lives on the line. We petitioned the government. Finally, after about a year of petitioning, President Roosevelt issued a statement saying: Americanism is not a matter of blood or color. Americanism is a matter of heart and soul. He said: OK, form a volunteer group. And that was done. We trained in Mississippi and we did our best.

The 100th Battalion, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team were assigned to do our battles in Europe. We fought in Italy and France. We started off the war with about 6,000 men. At the end, over 12,000 had gone through the ranks. So you can imagine the casualty rates. We had about 10,000 Purple Hearts for all the wounds they received. We were told that these two units became the most decorated in the history of the United States.

Yes, the bombing of Pearl Harbor 70 years ago began a period of my life when I became an adult and, I hope, a good American. It is something I will never forget. It changed my life forever.

Something of interest at this moment: 20 years ago, when we decided to make it a national event--the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor--on that morning, the President was there. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of War, the Secretaries of the Interior Department, State Department--all of the important people of the United States were in attendance.

In preparation of this, we took a poll, about 6 months before December 7, and the poll was among high school seniors, well-educated young boys and girls. The question was a very simple one: What is the significance of December 7, 1941?

Mr. President, I am sad to report to you that less than half could respond. Most of them thought it was a birthday of some President or some historic date of some nature, but they could not recall what it was.

On this 70th anniversary, I wonder, if that poll were taken again, What would be the outcome?

Well, I hope we will remember December 7. I hope we will remember 9/ 11. That was just a few years ago. But people are beginning to forget 9/11, as well as forgetting December 7.

If December 7 is going to teach us anything, it should be that we must remain vigilant at all times--not just to avoid war but vigilant among ourselves so we would not use this as a justification to set aside our most honored document, the Constitution. I hope it will never happen again.

Mr. President, I thank you very much for this opportunity.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my most distinguished friend from Arizona for his generous, warm, and friendly remarks. They mean a lot to me. I will never forget them. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, first I thank Chairman Barbara Mikulski for her valiant work in the conference.

As we are all aware, the congressional budget process has faced unprecedented obstacles over the past year. We have struggled to find common ground on one of the most basic responsibilities of Congress-- funding the operations of the Federal Government.

Earlier this year, we saw politically charged threats of government shutdowns, culminating with an irresponsible debt ceiling standoff that brought our economy to the brink of disaster. The American people are deeply frustrated that many in Congress put partisanship ahead of the national interest.

Yet, despite these challenges, we now consider legislation that reflects the good-faith efforts and input of Members of both sides of the aisle in both the House and Senate. Given current fiscal and political realities, this is no small accomplishment.

The conference report before us today includes three fiscal year 2012 appropriations measures: Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, Science; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. This legislation also includes a continuing resolution that funds government operations through December 16, giving Congress time to finish its work on the remaining funding bills.

These bills are focused on a number of basic priorities: job creation, public safety, science, nutrition, housing, and transportation. Due to the stringent funding limits included in the Budget Control Act, which established a discretionary spending level that is $7 billion below last year's level, many items in these bills are not funded to the levels I would prefer.

As we all await the outcome of the supercommittee, I again remind my colleagues that we cannot balance the Nation's books on the back of nondefense discretionary spending.

Despite our reduced spending levels, I am pleased that we have been able to maintain investments in several critical areas.

Public safety is a top priority of this bill. The conference report before us provides the resources necessary for the Food and Drug Administration to begin implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act, which will better protect the American people from foodborne illnesses.

The funding levels provided in the conference agreement for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Agency; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the U.S. Marshals Service will prevent layoffs and furloughs of Federal agents, enabling the agencies to continue their critical missions with regard to public safety.

The funds provided will also allow for increased law enforcement on the Southwest border. I note that the bill maintains funding for COPS hiring grants, which were eliminated in the original House bill.

The conference report before us funds an additional 11,000 new housing vouchers for homeless veterans. It includes $500 million for competitive TIGER surface transportation grants, as well as nearly $2 billion for new transit rail projects, and it maintains Federal support for Amtrak.

This bill includes more than $12 billion for basic research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

This research will plant the seeds for new discoveries that not only win Nobel Prizes, but also earn profits and create American jobs in our highly competitive global economy.

The conference report before us represents thousands of compromises on issues large and small. It represents, in no small measure, the way the Congress of the United States is meant to function.

The credit for this accomplishment rests with the members of the subcommittees and their staffs. I thank the leadership of the three subcommittees, Senators Kohl, Mikulski, Murray, Blunt, Hutchison, and Collins for their exceptional efforts in completing these three bills.

We all recognize that we would not have been able to accomplish this task without the countless hours put in by the staff of the subcommittee. I want to take a moment--I think it is important--to recognize them for their efforts.

I want to publicly thank Galen Fountain, Jessica Arden Frederick, Dianne Nellor, Bob Ross, Molly Barackman-Eder, Gabrielle Batkin, Jessica Berry, Jeremy Weirich, Jean Toal-Eisen, Molly O'Rourke, Alex Keenan, Meaghan McCarthy, Rachel Milberg, Dabney Hegg, Stacy McBride, Rachel Jones, James Christoferson, Allen Cutler, Goodloe Sutton, Courtney Stevens, Heideh Shahmoradi, Brooke Hayes Stringer, Carl Barrick, and Mike Clarke. They are the ones who should be receiving the medal this evening.

This conference report is the culmination of a process that includes countless hours of hearings, markups, debate, negotiations, and posting online--and I underline this--all of the hearing testimony and legislative text for any citizen to review. Finally, it represents the one essential ingredient to a functioning democracy that has been in short supply in recent months: compromise.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure and send it to the President for his signature.

I yield the floor.