Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant, a talented administrator, and a tireless warrior for homeland security. Transportation Security Administration Deputy Administrator and Chief Operating Officer Gale Rossides is retiring at the end of the month, and her departure will be a significant loss not just for TSA and the Department of Homeland Security but for the American people, whom she has served so well throughout her 34-year career in the public sector.

As Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I came to understand the central role Ms. Rossides played at TSA. In appearances before the Committee, she impressed me as a knowledgeable and experienced manager whose dedication to the agency helped TSA stay on track through a difficult and chaotic start up and develop into a more mature agency as the years progressed.

Ms. Rossides' institutional memory, alone, will be irreplaceable. She was one of the original six executives hired to build TSA from the ground up in 2001, and in his book ``After: How American Confronted the September 12 Era,'' Steven Brill wrote that ``no matter what was added to her plate, or what she reached out for to put on it herself, she seemed to take it in stride.'' Despite the grueling 13-hour days and 6- day weeks, Ms. Rossides stayed at TSA for 10 years--with a 1-year hiatus as senior advisor to the Under Secretary for Management at DHS. I think it is fair to say that today she is one of the department's most respected senior executives.

Ms. Rossides brought critical management experience to the nascent TSA. In the tense period after September 11, 2001, she led the team of government and private sector officials that trained and certified more than 50,000 screeners in less than 6 months--the largest public mobilization since World War II. She oversaw the debut of TSA's federalized screening force at Baltimore Washington Airport. And she led the effort to develop and implement screener technical training and certification standards.

Throughout her TSA tenure, Ms. Rossides has fostered collaborative partnerships with stakeholders; pushed for more intelligence sharing; created leadership development programs; and developed innovative workforce programs to encourage communication and conflict management. Under her watch, TSA reduced its employee injury and attrition rates and raised employee morale through innovative solutions like providing benefits to part time personnel.

Ms. Rossides moved steadily up the management ladder during her tenure at TSA. She has served as the Associate Administrator/Chief Support Systems Officer, been a Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary and the Under Secretary for Management at DHS, and in 2007 she was appointed acting Deputy Administrator, a position that became permanent in January 2008. She has held that position longer than any other in the agency's history.

From 2009 to January 2010, she served as Acting TSA Administrator. As such, she oversaw the implementation of Secure Flight and introduced other key security programs, including measures implemented to detect and deter improved explosives devices that could be concealed on terrorists, in the aftermath of the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack.

This career arc more than justifies Steven Brill's description of her in his book as ``an incurable workaholic'' who would ``run over or cleverly sidestep almost any obstacle to get to the goal.'' It is a tribute to her character that she remained universally well-liked while doing so.

Before she was hand-picked to help launch TSA, Ms. Rossides had worked at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, within the Justice Department, for 23 years, where she started as an administrative assistant. She was co-chair of a blue ribbon panel to overhaul ATF after the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian ranch in Waco, TX. For 8 years, she served as the first assistant director, in charge of all law enforcement, investigative, regulatory, and leadership training at ATF--the first woman to hold such a significant post at the bureau. And she was a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for 6 years.

The American people have been fortunate that Ms. Rossides has given much of her life to the Federal Government. We are certainly better off because of it.

Madam President, I rise today in strong opposition to Senator Inhofe's resolution of disapproval concerning the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics rule. If passed, this resolution would have a devastating impact on our decades-long effort to clean up the air Americans breathe, and it would betray the responsible utility managers who have already taken steps to reduce the mercury and air toxics entering our atmosphere.

As I approach the end of my Senate career, I have spent some time reflecting on my past votes and the legacy I hope to leave behind. The debate before us today brings me back to my very first years in the Senate and an effort that has continued throughout my entire time here.

In 1990, I was part of the group of members of the Senate EPW Committee and the administration of President George H.W. Bush who negotiated and passed the Clean Air Act Amendments. At the time, the need for this legislation was painfully clear--acid rain was eating paint off of cars, and thick, visible smog blanketed too many of our cities. Some wanted Congress to turn a blind eye, but we did not. We acted, and we acted together.

During those many weeks, we met daily to reach a bipartisan agreement

that would put our country on the path to cleaner air. It was the leadership of majority leader George Mitchell and President Bush's representatives, including Boyden Gray, that led us to a grand bargain. Because all of the parties negotiated in good faith toward a common goal, the Clean Air Act Amendments were adopted in an October 1990 vote by an 89-to-10 margin. Think about that: 89 votes in favor of one of the most significant environmental law changes in our history. I regret that such a broad bipartisan agreement in support of our environment will not be repeated this week.

Now, in the final year of my Senate career, we are debating a resolution that seeks to undo one of the provisions that we worked so hard to pass as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments in my first term in office--a requirement that EPA issue standards to reduce emissions of air toxics from stationary sources. That was 22 years ago, but it was only February of this year that EPA finally published the rule that would implement these standards. Administrator Lisa Jackson and Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy, who served so ably as Connecticut's commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, have brought us a rule that will finally put in place the mercury and air toxics restrictions we have been waiting for.

This resolution would roll back that rule, the first-ever national limits on powerplant emissions of air toxics, including mercury. Without this rule, powerplant operators can continue pumping dozens of tons of mercury and hundreds of thousands of tons of other toxic air pollutants into our air each year.

Many of my colleagues have spoken to the extensive health and environmental rationale behind the mercury and air toxics rule, so I will just highlight a few of the most startling statistics. One in twelve American women of childbearing age has mercury blood levels that would put their fetuses at risk for impaired development. These developmental impairments are a human tragedy, denying children their full intellectual and psychological potential.

With respect to the environment, just look at Connecticut. We are blessed by natural beauty--rolling hills, beautiful beaches, vast forests, and flowing streams and rivers. Unfortunately, every single body of water--every lake, stream, river, and pond--in the State of Connecticut has a mercury advisory in place. Where do we think this came from? It was not here before the advent of polluting powerplants spewing mercury into the air. We are blessed by plentiful fresh water, but that gift has been tainted by the mercury that has been spewed into the air over generations. Even in Long Island Sound, one of America's greatest estuaries, we are faced with a restriction on which seafood we can eat. One of the best fish in the sound--the bluefish--is off limits to us because of mercury. Is this the legacy we want to leave our children?

Of course, this debate should not be about which fish we can or cannot eat, it should be about following through on a promise we made to the American people in 1990, by a margin of 89 to 10, that we would move forward on efforts to reduce air toxics being emitted by powerplants. If we pass this resolution, we would break that promise.

Some of my colleagues may claim that the mercury rule is an attack on coal. To them I would say: This is nothing of the sort. This rule would actually save money and save lives. It would save between $37 billion and $90 billion a year in health benefits while creating 54,000 jobs. It would prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 cases of childhood asthma attacks each year. This is a case of government protecting its citizens with a commonsense rule to require widely available pollution control systems be installed at our powerplants.

I want to close by once again urging my colleagues not to break our promise we made to the American people in 1990 that the U.S. Government would do everything in its power to ensure the American people had clean air to breathe and to reduce dangerous pollutants in order to give our children the chance to grow up healthy. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution.

Mr. President, I wish to engage my colleague, Senator Stabenow, in a colloquy.

I thank Senator Stabenow and the other members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry for their collective efforts in passing S. 3240, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012. This bill promises to save taxpayers money and concentrate funds in the areas in which they will have the greatest impact, making them work better for producers.

As the Senator knows, Long Island Sound, LIS, and its watershed contain some of the most important farm, forest, and water resources in the country. The estuary is home to a historically significant and now burgeoning aquaculture industry. The Sound provides natural habitats to more than 1,200 species of invertebrates, 170 species of fish, and hundreds of species of migratory birds. Commercial and recreational shellfishers harvest oysters, crabs, and lobsters from its waters. More than 23 million people live within 50 miles of the Sound. The estimated annual value to the local economy of LIS is $8.91 billion. Federal, State, and local partners operate together throughout its six-State watershed using formal, shared priorities that provide a strong basis for applying conservation practices to improve soil and water quality, farm and producer productivity, and to restore wetlands and wildlife habitat. The Sound and its watershed are recognized by NRCS as a multistate partnership area. The watershed's major river, the Connecticut River, was just designated as the Nation's first Blueway.

Is it the Senator's intent to provide a framework where strong partnerships between producers and conservation organizations, like exist in the Long Island Sound watershed, can succeed by putting forth projects that work to achieve locally or regionally established goals and metrics?

I thank the Senator for her leadership and assistance and cooperation in ensuring that the intent of this important bill is allowed to be carried out in areas where greatest impact will result.

I thank the Presiding Officer and my friend from Colorado.

Mr. President, I rise to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the urgent need for the Senate to adopt cybersecurity legislation.

I begin by recalling a recent story in the Washington Post that detailed how a young man living an ocean away from us was able to use his computer to hack into the cyber control system of a local water utility here in the United States. It took him just 10 minutes and required no special tools or no special training.

While the hacker could have taken over the water company's operations and caused real damage, instead he posted screen shots of his hack on the Internet to show that he had been there and prove his point that our Nation's Internet security is woefully lax. And it took very little in the way of resources or skill to penetrate it.

This kind of story is but one piece of what I would call an avalanche of evidence showing that there is an urgent need to pass comprehensive cybersecurity legislation that will safeguard our critical cyber infrastructure.

The fact is, as this 22-year-old's activities showed, and as authorities in the area, such as ADM Mike McConnell, the former Director of National Intelligence, have said, the cyber infrastructure which is owned by private entities is simply not adequately defended. And when it is not adequately defended--and here I am talking about vital national systems: The electric power grid, water companies, transportation systems, pipelines, et cetera, et cetera--when the cyber systems that control them now are not adequately protected, it means our Nation is not adequately protected because a cyber-attack can incapacitate vital national entities that we all depend on every day and, in fact, cause enormous harm and loss of life, as much as a conventional attack by air in earlier confrontations and conflicts.

Yesterday the majority leader came to the floor of the Senate and spoke, I thought, eloquently about the urgency of the Senate adopting cybersecurity legislation. I wanted to come to the floor today to thank Senator Reid for that statement and to say, as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, how strongly I agree with him. Of course, we are not alone.

A few days ago six of our Nation's most experienced national security leaders, spanning the last two-plus administrations, transcending any lines of partisanship, wrote a letter to Senator Reid urging him to bring up cybersecurity legislation ``as soon as possible.'' That is a quote: ``as soon as possible.''

In that letter to both--not just to Senator Reid, but to Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, as well--former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff from the Bush administration; former Director of National Intelligence, ADM Mike McConnell, whom I referred to, from the Bush administration; former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, also from the previous administration; former NSA and CIA Director Mike Hayden, also from the previous administration; former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN James Cartwright, and former Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn sent this letter--incidentally, to say what is already a matter of public record. In doing so, they express opinions that are quite similar to what we have heard from all the leaders of the current administration when it comes to security--Secretary of Defense Panetta, Director of National Intelligence Clapper, Director of the CIA Petraeus, and so on, and, of course, Secretary Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security.

I want to read from this letter from these national security leaders because it sums up where we are. I quote now:

Given the time left in this legislative session and the

upcoming election this fall, we are concerned that the window

of opportunity to pass legislation that is in our view

critically necessary to protect our national and economic

security is quickly disappearing.

In the letter they went on to say--and I quote again

We--

The signers of the letter--

carry the burden of knowing--

Along with a lot of the rest of us--

that 9/11 might have been averted with the intelligence that

existed at the time. We do

not want to be in the same position again when ``cyber 9/11''

hits--it is not a question of whether this will happen; it is

a question of when.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

The majority leader came to the floor yesterday, as I have said, echoing these sentiments in his floor speech, when he said:

When virtually every intelligence expert says we need to

secure the systems that make the lights come on, inaction is

not an option.

I could not agree more with Senator Reid.

The fact is, the House of Representatives, the so-called other body of Congress, has passed a cybersecurity bill--a package that I think takes some significant initial good steps. I thank the House for that. But I believe the bipartisan Senate Cybersecurity Act of 2012, S. 2105, which is sponsored by Senators Collins, Feinstein, Rockefeller, and me, takes the additional necessary steps to secure our cyber systems and, therefore, is preferable.

It is preferable, in large part, because it addresses the need to secure our Nation's critical cyber infrastructure; that is, the computers that control the systems that, if commandeered, attacked or intruded upon, could allow an attacker to open and close key valves and switches in pipelines for gas and oil and refineries and factories and water and sewer systems and electric plants and banks and along transportation nodes without detection by their operators.

We need to pass this bill or something very much like it so we can go to conference with the House and iron out whatever differences we have this year so we can get legislation to the President's desk. He has endorsed, I am grateful to say, S. 2105--certainly endorsed the principles that are in it.

We have to do that so we raise our defenses before we are victims of a cyber 9/11. The time remaining to do so in this session is obviously growing shorter. We know the lameduck session will be almost exclusively taken up with difficult questions about the budget, debt, sequester, the expiration of the so-called Bush tax cuts and much more. So we have to act.

I am encouraged by Senator Reid's statement yesterday and my own belief after conversations with him that the leader is intent on bringing this legislation to the floor in July. The truth is, if we do not take it up in July and see whether we have the votes--and I am confident we will when it comes to the floor--we are not going to be able to pass this legislation that is timely and allows us to go to conference, reach an agreement, and send the bill to the President of the United States for his signature.

When talking about cybersecurity, the biggest threats we all know come from other nations, nation states, also nonstate actors such as terrorists and organized crime syndicates. But this young man I referred to at the beginning of my statement and his ability to quite easily penetrate the cyber control system of a local water company in the United States shows us that an attack can come from just about anyone and from just about anywhere.

According to the Washington Post story, ``This individual who goes by the name prOf is a bright unemployed 22 year old who favors hoodie sweatshirts and lives in his parent's home somewhere overseas.''

But this good guy, white-hat hacker, knows the risks our Nation is facing. He told the Post:

Eventually, somebody will get access to a major system and

people will be hurt. It is just a matter of time.

That is the truth. Six of our Nation's premier equity security experts are in agreement with this 22-year-old hacker as they said in their letter: It is just a matter of time. We have to act before that time comes. To my colleagues who have concerns about the Cyber Security Act of 2011, the Collins-Feinstein-Rockefeller-Lieberman legislation, I say: Come on and work with us. We can and must resolve our differences. In fact, around some of the major areas of discussion, controversy, the section of our bill that has performance requirements for private sector entities that own the most critical infrastructure which, if attacked, could cause mass deaths, casualties, catastrophic economic loss, and a denigration of our national security, those are--and then the other section being the information-sharing section, where some people have civil liberties or privacy concerns, there is a good-faith effort going on to resolve those differences because, I think increasingly, Members of the Senate on both sides, just reacting to the facts, are worried this is a real and present danger to our security.

Perhaps the most real and present immediate danger of a massive attack on our homeland that exists today is by cyber attack. I do not think any of us wants to look back and say: Why did we not act before we were attacked? Therefore, I am encouraged by these deliberations. But I say to anybody else who has concerns about our bill, Members of the Senate, please be in touch with Senators Collins, Feinstein, Rockefeller or myself.

If we cannot resolve our differences, then draft amendments and let's debate them on the floor and have up-or-down votes and let the Senate work its will. As Senator Reid said in his remarks yesterday:

Everybody knows this Congress cannot pass laws that do not

have broad bipartisan support. So we are going to need to

work together on a bill that addresses the concerns of

lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

That time is coming soon, I am confident to say, based on my conversations with the majority leader. That time is coming soon on the floor of the Senate, but we have to start now to make sure we are ready when the bill comes to the Senate floor. I guarantee that one day in the near future, if we do not pass comprehensive cybersecurity legislation, and there is a serious and significant cyberspace attack on us, we will rush to pass it and that will be too late and we will not do it in a thoughtful way.

Time grows short while the threat keeps swelling. What if the next 22-year-old who decides to take over a water plant or an oil or gas pipeline or an electric powerplant decides to make a more convincing demonstration than just posting screen pictures online? If a 22-year- old can do this, think what an enemy nation with a significant amount of money and personnel and training behind it could do to us if we are not adequately defended?

I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, because this is not a partisan issue at all, this is a national security-homeland security issue: Let's get to work. Let's get ready for the floor debate on cybersecurity that I am confident is coming soon. Then let's pass this urgently needed legislation for the sake of both our national and economic security.

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

Madam President, it is an honor to join in this colloquy with my friend from Arizona, though I obviously take no pleasure in it because it is an outcry--a cri de coeur--an outcry of the heart about the slaughter going on in Syria now, once again, with a government killing its own people to maintain its own presence and power. It is an outcry because for more than a year now the rest of the world, including the United States, has offered these victims of the brutal violence of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus essentially words--words of condemnation, words of sympathy. But those words--or the few cell phones we have given those Syrian freedom fighters--don't stand up against Assad's tanks, his guns, and the brutality of his forces.

So I would say the answer to the question my friend from Arizona posed--how many more people have to be killed?--obviously, too many people have already been killed. It is time for the United States to show some leadership.

Senator McCain and I are not calling for American troops on the ground in Syria. We are not calling for the United States alone to take action. There is a coalition of the willing. If we continue to say we are not going to take action to help the victims of Assad's brutality until and unless we get authorization from the U.N. Security Council, there is never going to be any help to go to these victims in

Syria because the Russians and probably the Chinese will veto any U.N. resolution.

Every time we say we have to go to the U.N., we raise the power of Russia to protect its ally in Damascus. But there is a coalition of the willing ready throughout the Arab world, and I think some in Europe and elsewhere, which will not act until the United States shows some leadership.

I want to just briefly put this in a historical context. After the Nazi Holocaust of the last century, the world said, ``Never again.'' ``Never again.'' We have kept that pledge in some cases, such as Bosnia and Kosovo, although it took us too long--too many people were killed before the world acted--and in other places, such as Rwanda, we turned away from the slaughter of people there.

Once again, we are challenged to show the victims whether we are true to our words. I read something a few days ago in the Washington Post. An article was drawing parallels between the genocide in Bosnia during the 1990s and the killing that is taking place in Syria today. There was a 37-year-old survivor of the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia that finally got the world to get involved, who said:

It's bizarre how ``never again'' has come to mean ``again

and again.'' It is obvious that we live in a world where

Srebrenicas are still possible. What is happening in Syria

today is almost identical to what happened in Bosnia two

decades ago.

So what is the world waiting for? A Syrian Srebrenica when thousands are killed on a single day by their own government before we act? I hope not. And that is why we speak out today.

Just within the hour, a story was posted on Reuters news service out of Beirut:

Six hours after tanks and militiamen pulled out of Mazraat

al-Qubeir, a Syrian farmer said he returned to find only

charred bodies among the smoldering homes of his once-

tranquil hamlet.

``There was smoke rising from the buildings and a horrible

smell of human flesh burning'' said a man who told how he

watched Syrian troops and ``shabbiha'' gunmen attack his

village as he hid in his family olive grove.

``It was like a ghost town'' he told Reuters, . . .''

Senator McCain and I have been explicit for some period of time. We have been both to Turkey and Lebanon to talk to leaders of the opposition and people in the refugee camps, and they simply say to us: As Americans, you are our only hope. This is from a people whose government has been determined in its anti-American posture, the Assad government, and yet the people now turn to us--as people always do in a time of crisis around the world--and say, This is what America is about. America has a moral government that cares about people's right to life and liberty, and we will not be saved unless you get involved.

I hope the latest events move our government to go beyond words to actions. And immediately. Again, Senator McCain and I have talked about actions we would support: arms to the opposition fighters, training of the opposition fighters, safe havens in Turkey, and perhaps other neighboring countries to Syria, where they can be trained and equipped; provision of intelligence that we have, which will help the opposition fight to defend themselves and their families.

Frankly, if it were up to us--and I know I can speak for Senator McCain--I think if we wanted to help and turn the tide quickly without a lot of unnecessary loss of life, we would use allied air power, Americans and our allies, and we would hit some targets important to the Assad government. I think that would break their will, and it would increase the number of defections from Assad's army and from the very important business community, and would result in a much sooner end to this terrible waste of lives.

So that is our outcry, and that is my answer to the question of my friend from Arizona. I thought the Senator was particularly right in condemning the idea that if we get involved, it militarizes the conflict--the conflict is already militarized on one side. Russia and Iran are providing Assad with all the weapons he needs. In the meantime, the opposition is scrounging around, paying exorbitant prices just for bullets which they have been running out of.

I ask my friend from Arizona, people say that intervention in Syria will be much harder than it was in Libya. I wonder if he would respond to that argument against us getting involved.

Madam President, I thank Senator McCain. I think he spoke with real clarity and strength, and this is exactly what we need to continue to do.

I want to go to the point he made. Some people say we shouldn't get involved in Syria because we don't know who the opposition is; therefore, we should be cautious before helping them.

We have had the opportunity to meet the opposition and their leadership, both the political opposition and the military opposition. And I would tell you, to the best of my judgment--I believe it is our judgment--these aren't extremists. These are Syrian patriots.

As Senator McCain said, this whole movement started peacefully. They went out into the squares in big cities in Syria. They were asking for more freedom. They actually weren't at the beginning asking for an overthrow of the Assad government. But what was Assad's response to them? He turned his guns on them and started to kill them wantonly. And when they decided there was no peaceful course--because he rejected every compromise alternative that intermediaries put in--they took up arms such as they could find.

The danger here is not that the people who are the leaders of the opposition are extremists or terrorists; the danger is that the extremists and terrorists will take over this movement if we and the rest of the civilized world don't get involved, and the Syrian opposition will be sorely tempted to take their support because they have no alternative. We simply can't let that happen.

I know there is a lot going on in our country. I know people are worried about the economy, as we are, of course. But America's strength and credibility in the world has actually always been not only what we are about by our founding documents and our history but what maintains our credibility and strength in the world, which is a foundation of our economic strength. The longer we give words but no action in response to the murder and rape of victims in Syria, the lower our credibility is. And we can't afford that.

Senator McCain said, and I want to emphasize, the main reason to get involved here is humanitarian. It is what America is about. It is about the protection of life and liberty. But it happens to be that this makes a lot of strategic sense, too, because the No. 1 enemy we have in the world today is Iran. If Assad goes down, Iran will suffer a grievous blow.

Some people said, and some still say it--including high officials of our government--that it is not a question of whether Bashar al Assad will fall but when. I don't agree. Having been over there talking to the opposition, watching what is happening, this is a profoundly unfair fight. Assad has most of the guns and systems, and the freedom fighters have very little. He will keep doing this as long as he has to, and this war will go on a long time, with thousands and thousands and thousands of more innocent people killed as they were earlier today in the Mazraat al-Qubeir.

The facts cry out for us to take action. I hope and pray we will. Senator McCain and I and others have. Senator Rubio has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today that speaks to some of the points we have made, and others on both sides I hope will continue to speak out until finally there will be action to save the lives of innocents.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of questions that opponents of our involvement raised, and the answers I would offer to those questions arguing for our involvement with a coalition of the willing.

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

Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Ohio for taking the lead on what I call a noble project, and I am confident that all of our colleagues will join us in this to include FDR's national prayer at the World War II Memorial.

It is very important to remember that D-day, which was 68 years ago today, turned out to be a pivotal moment in the war in Europe. FDR chose not to give a speech announcing the landing at Normandy but to offer a national prayer. I think in doing so, he went to a very proud, not only tradition in America but one of our great assets where we have had the ability to bring faith and God in a very inclusive and nondiscriminatory way into our public life to the great benefit of our Nation.

As he delivered these words of prayer in a historic radio broadcast, which of course is the way it was done in those days, the success of the bold and dangerous D-day plan was far from assured. But with the eloquent faithfulness of his words and with his steady Presidential leadership, I believe the brave American men and women in uniform who landed at Normandy were strengthened by the conviction of our national values, the virtue and righteousness of their cause, and, of course, with confidence that they would benefit from the guiding grace of God.

I remember words by President Reagan on another Normandy anniversary when he said:

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was

right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a

just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the

next.

Indeed, I think adding FDR'S prayer to the grandness of the World War II Memorial will even elevate it, and it will rightly remind all who visit of the essential role that faith in God played at that pivotal moment of world history. It will also remind us that faith in God has played a pivotal role in American history every day since the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, when our Founders declared that they were forming our new government to secure the rights of life, liberty, and happiness that each of us receive as an endowment from our creator.

All of this is expressed in the wonderful idea that Senator Portman has had and would be accomplished by this project.

I yield back to my friend from Ohio for the beginning of President Roosevelt's prayer.

I continue with Roosevelt's prayer.

And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives,

sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas--whose thoughts

and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to

rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of

great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single

day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the

desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a

continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again

when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips,

invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to

redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the

material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail,

to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our

sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee. Faith in

our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade.

Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not

the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but

fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable

purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces

of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and

racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and

with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a

sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy

men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom,

reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

Madam President, as we know, many lives were lost on D-day and what followed, but it led to the defeat of--if I

may use President Roosevelt's words--``the unholy forces of our enemy,'' and of a remarkable period of peace and prosperity in America and certainly in Europe.

If I might add briefly, although the circumstances and challenges we face at this moment in our Nation's history are much less greater than America faced on June 6, 1944, nonetheless, there is a certain absence of hopefulness and confidence today. I would respectfully suggest that one of the great sources of hopefulness and confidence that we all could benefit from today is exactly the faith in God in a very inclusive way such as President Roosevelt spoke on that fateful day of June 6, 1944.

Again, with thanks to my friend from Ohio for this idea and for his generosity of spirit in inviting me to join both in sponsoring this proposal and in reading this prayer today, I yield the floor back to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Jan Karski, who, as a young officer in the Polish Underground during the Second World War, was among the first to provide eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust to the world.

Shaped by his own personal loss during one of the darkest hours in human history, Dr. Karski had the moral clarity to make distinctions between good and evil, and the personal courage to speak out and fight for good and against evil. After being captured and tortured by the Nazis, Dr. Karski escaped and became a courier for the Polish Underground, smuggling information out of Poland to the Polish government-in-exile. Among his many missions, Dr. Karski, who was Roman Catholic, twice infiltrated Warsaw's Jewish Ghetto through a series of underground tunnels disguised as a Nazi auxiliary guard.

Dr. Karski showed fearlessness in the face of a regime built on fear, and he was not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom and take on the enemies of freedom. In 1943, Dr. Karski traveled to the United Kingdom and the United States, where he was the first credible eyewitness to brief British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden and President

Roosevelt about the Holocaust in an effort to build international pressure against Hitler and the Nazi regime. While his pleas did not lead to the quick action that they deserved, Dr. Karski persisted in reporting on the brutality that would ultimately prompt meaningful international intervention.

After the war, Dr. Karski resettled in the United States, where he earned his doctorate from Georgetown University and taught for 4 decades, warning generations of students about the dangers of authoritarianism, including one notable student: President Bill Clinton. During his lifetime and following his death in 2000, Jan Karski was and has been the recipient of dozens of international awards honoring his courageous work. I was proud to join my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Levin, and Cardin last year in writing to President Obama to urge his consideration of Dr. Karski for highest civilian honor--the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I am delighted that President Obama announced at the Holocaust Memorial Museum last month that Dr. Karski will be honored posthumously with the award later this month.

The choice to confront tyranny is not an easy one, but it is America's responsibility and purpose as a Nation. Through his decades of devoted service, Jan Karksi carried out this mission and lived its values. And in doing so, he was a champion of the cause that has defined our country since its birth--the cause that has given us an enduring purpose and a national destiny: the cause of human freedom.

I am encouraged to know that there are efforts underway to ensure that Jan Karski's story is shared widely in the years ahead and in particular during 2014, which will mark the centennial of his birth. Jan Karski's example should inspire in us the belief that courageous and determined people can help to shape the course of human history for the better and remind us what is required to ensure that when we say Never Again, it will truly mean Never Again.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 6, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a Committee hearing entitled ``Implementing

Wall Street Reform: Enhancing Bank Supervision and Reducing Systemic Risk.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 6, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The European Union Emissions Trading System.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 6, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 6, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ensuring that Federal Prosecutors Meet Discovery Obligations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 6, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 6, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pension Poachers: Preventing Fraud and Protecting America's Veterans.''

Mr. President, on Sunday, the 20th of May, Taiwan marked the second inauguration of President Ma Ying-jeou. Since its first direct presidential elections in 1996, Taiwan's democracy has emerged as model for the rest of the Asia Pacific region. Over these 16 years, power has changed hands twice between Taiwan's two largest political parties, demonstrating for the world the rapid maturation of its democracy and the commitment of its people to exercising their democratic freedoms. I rise today to congratulate President Ma on his inauguration, and note Taiwan's remarkable history as a kindred democracy, key partner in security and trade, and great friend of the United States.

I take deep pride in the partnership between the United States and the people of Taiwan, which is rooted in shared values, shared interests, and a shared vision for a peaceful and prosperous future. For more than 6 decades, the United States has stood with Taiwan as it has transformed into a prosperous free market democracy.

Just as the United States has supported Taiwan, so too has Taiwan been a great friend to America. Taiwan is among America's top trading partners. Moreover, time and time again from the Korean War, to the Vietnam War, to our continued security cooperation today Taiwan has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States. I am deeply grateful to the people of Taiwan for their contributions to our shared security and prosperity.

Looking to the future, I hope and believe that President Ma's second inauguration will mark another milestone in the deepening relationship between the United States and Taiwan. For all of our progress, we still have a big agenda ahead.

It is past time for us to remove the barriers to trade between the U.S. and Taiwan and negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with Taiwan. We must also ensure that the people of Taiwan are secure, so they can continue to decide their future for themselves. That, in turn, means the United States should take common-sense steps to deepen our security ties with Taiwan and support Taiwan in acquiring the weapons it needs and has requested. As the United States focuses increasingly on the Asia-Pacific region, the Obama Administration must do more to make Taiwan an integral part of our broader strategy to uphold the balance of power in this critical part of the world as a way to maintain peace.

In closing, I again congratulate President Ma on his inauguration and thank Taiwan's people for their decades of friendship.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving on having been named the Bronze Award winner for excellence in communications by the 2012 Wilmer Shields Rich Awards Program. This award, which is given out by the National Council on Foundations, recognizes those organizations that develop top-notch communications plans to increase attention and support for nonprofit foundations and corporate giving programs. Increasing public awareness of these organizations helps them to better serve the community.

The Harford Foundation for Public Giving received this honor for its 2010 annual report, ``Creating Brighter Futures.'' This report focused on the foundation's 25-year, $30 million initiative to improve school readiness and success in early grades for Hartford children. The award--one of 12 awarded out of 140 entries in 4 categories--was presented during the Council on Foundations Annual Conference, April 29 to May 1, in Los Angeles.

Of course, this award did not come as a surprise to me, considering all the great work the foundation has done in the Hartford region. Founded in 1925, the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving is the community foundation for Hartford and 28 other towns in Connecticut's capital region. Devoted to enhancing the quality of life in the region, the foundation provides grants and other support to a broad range of nonprofit organizations, helps donors make effective charitable giving decisions, and brings people together to discuss important community issues. The foundation has awarded $532 million since opening its doors in 1925 in grants in the areas of arts and culture, children and youth, education, health, housing and economic development, and family and social services.

I am proud to honor the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving on having been named the Bronze Award winner for excellence in communications by the 2012 Wilmer Shields Rich Awards Program. I thank Linda Kelly, the foundation's president and CEO, and everyone else involved in the foundation for all they have done for the people of the Hartford region.

Mr. President, this is a classic moment-- unfortunately, too typical--where we all agree on the goal, but we want to pass another tier of sanctions against the Iranians to deter them from developing nuclear weapons. Our goal has been to get this done before the P5+1--five permanent members of the Security Council of the U.N., plus Germany--meet again with Iran in Baghdad this time, which is next Tuesday.

I understand the frustration of the majority leader. First, nobody has been more consistent and steadfast and sincere in their effort than the majority leader to have this body make very clear to everybody in the world--particularly the Iranians--that we will not accept them becoming a nuclear power, and we are prepared to use economic sanctions and, if necessary, certainly now the credible threat of force.

I also know the majority leader has been pushed and pulled back and forth over the last several weeks to get to a point where we can get this done before May 23. So I understand his frustration at this moment.

I hear my Republican colleagues, and I have looked at the language they are concerned about. They are concerned that in listing the economic sanctions as one way that can be used to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and not listing the credible threat, the option of military force, as President Obama and others have said, that somehow we are sending a message of weakness.

Frankly, my original hope was that the more important thing to do is to get this done and passed in the Senate by next Tuesday when all parties come to Baghdad. But the difference is not only small, it is nonexistent. We all agree we ought to try the sanctions, that we ought to make them tough, that they ought not be watered down before the Iranians agree to stop their nuclear weapons program. And we all agree we have to have the credible threat of force being used against the Iranian nuclear program if there is any real hope of the sanctions working.

I know the majority leader has to leave the Senate floor. Ideally, I wish we could agree on that sentence and get it done and passed today by consent, if we can. If we can't, I hope we can do it by Monday so we do send a message of unity, which we have, but the words, the procedures, the mood is standing in the way of us sending a unified message from the Senate to the rest of the world, and particularly to the Islamic Republic of Iran in Tehran, that we mean business. Right now we are not speaking with one voice.

I appeal to my colleagues. Let us step back, take a breath. Can we do it this afternoon? Maybe. I hope so. If we can't, let us get it done over the weekend and adopt it by Monday.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to respond to my friend from Tennessee. I am actually very glad he raises the question, because I know at least one other Member of the Senate has similar concerns.

The interpretation of my friend from Tennessee of our intention in this resolution is exactly right, which is that there is nothing in this resolution that is intended to be an authorization for the use of military force in Iran by the President or government, military, of the United States of America.

This resolution's main focus is to essentially back up with a congressional statement the position President Obama has articulated; that no matter what happens, containment of a nuclear Iran is not an acceptable policy from the point of view of the security of the United States; that our policy is to prevent the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. That is exactly why clause 6 was put in there, to say we do not accept containment; that our policy is prevention of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

But I want to be clear there is nothing in that language that Senator Graham or I or Senator Casey see as the authorization of the use of military force. If at any point circumstances in Iran require, in the judgment of the Commander in Chief, military action, then I expect-- particularly if it lasts a period of time that would bring it within the purview of the war powers understandings--the President would come to Congress seeking explicit authorization for the use of military force.

This resolution supports the negotiations going on now between the P5+1 and Iran. It expresses our hope that it succeed so that the option of military force is not necessary. It is very significant in that it essentially says--and I will paraphrase it--we ought not to dial down the economic sanctions against Iran just because they have come to the table and maybe accepted one part of what we want them to do. They have got to show they have made a commitment for a verifiable end of their nuclear weapons program before we lift the economic sanctions. That is the real goal. And if they do not, they will face our policy of prevention, not containment. But this is not the authorization of the use of military force.

I thank my friend from Tennessee for raising the question and giving us the opportunity to respond, and I hope it reassures anyone else in the Senate who may have had that same concern.

With that, I yield for my friend from South Carolina.

I was hoping for 4 \1/4\ minutes. OK. I will do my best.

I thank the Senator.

That is very generous of my friend.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Alabama.

I have been listening to some of the statements that are being made. They are quite sincere. They are quite interesting. But I am afraid, in the end, they are not going to signify very much except good intentions.

We have ourselves in a position here where we all know the country has a terrible problem. We are spending a lot more than we are bringing in. The simplest way to explain it is, the last time I looked--I think I am still close on this--revenues of the Federal Government are about 15 or 16 percent of gross domestic product and the spending of the Federal Government is about 25 percent of gross domestic product. There you have a yawning, enormous deficit, which adds up now to a long-term debt of over $15 trillion.

We cannot go on like this and be a great country. We cannot go on like this and have any hope of economic recovery. I happen to agree--I should say in gratitude for the extra time Senator Sessions has given me--I happen to agree with the last thing he said. I think--and I am not alone; I think some people on both sides feel this--the best thing we can do for our economy and economic growth is to adopt a bipartisan long-term program that will reduce and hopefully eliminate our debt. Why? Because it will restore confidence in the American economy.

We all know that jobs do not come from government. They should not come from government or in government. Jobs that people want, need, come from the private sector. The last time I looked, the private sector--American business--was sitting on somewhere between $2 trillion and $3 trillion of liquid assets that they are not spending. Why aren't they spending it? They have very little confidence in the future--not just confidence about how the economy is going to be, but what we are going to do, what the government is going to do.

I think if we adopted a long-term bipartisan debt reduction program that gave them some sense of security about what taxes and spending policies were going to do for some years ahead, they would start to invest that $2 trillion to $3 trillion again, and that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs that people desperately need, who are trying so hard to get back to work.

Look, basically we know what we have to do to make this happen. To state it bluntly, it has to be a combination of tax reform and entitlement reform. We have to raise revenues so they get back up to 18, 19, 20 percent and we have to bring spending down--most of the spending increases are coming from entitlements--to about 18 or 19 percent of GDP so we can be in balance. It is not very mysterious how we are going to do this. But the political will is not there now to make those tough decisions.

Today is a classic moment. We have these budget resolutions that are before us as a matter of privilege. They are privileged matters. I have wanted to vote to proceed to some of them just to get on the subject matter, hoping that maybe the door would be opened for direction to various committees to come back with long-term solutions, as I have talked about.

We all know the Bowles-Simpson model is the one we are going to eventually get to. The question is, how close do we get to the fiscal cliff--or has our country gone over the cliff, falling down--and, finally, we rush in here and in a panic rescue it with something like Simpson-Bowles?

The closest Senate proposal that would do what we need to do is the one my friend from North Dakota has tabled in the Budget Committee. I wish we could vote on it. I do not know how many votes we would get, but I wish we could at least start the process.

I know everybody says we are going to come back after the election and there is going to be a burst of courage, I guess because the election is over, and we are going to do the Simpson-Bowles tax reform and entitlement reform. What I am sort of hearing in the wind around here is, do not count on it. I hope so. Senator Conrad and I, it is going to be our last couple of months on this particular stage. There is nothing I know he would like more to be part of, and I can tell you nothing I would like more to be part of, than doing a bipartisan, long- term debt reduction program.

But I am fearful that it is asking an awful lot of the system in a short period of time, and the tendency will be to protect us from falling off the cliff by extending everything that is going to expire at the end of the year: stopping the sequestering, stopping the end of the Bush tax cuts. I hope I am wrong. I know there are some bipartisan groups that I have been part of that are working to get ready for that point.

That is important work, because it cannot spring out of nowhere. But our country's future is at stake, the future of the greatest economy in the history of the world, because of our irresponsibility is the only thing I can say, and we have been part of it. I take blame for part of it. We are not doing what the country needs us to do.

I am going to vote against the motions to proceed, because each of them, the proposals before us do not achieve anything near what we need to do in terms of a balance--entitlement reform, tax reform.

I do want to say one other thing which I hope we can get to soon. To say the obvious, but sometimes it is important to say it, the existing budget process has broken down. It does not work. It is not related to the reality of the economic or political times we are in. So the budget process does not work. Let me cite a couple of statistics. Not since early in 2009 has the Congress managed to actually pass a real annual budget resolution. I know the Budget Control Act does some of the things a budget resolution would do, but not all of them, and it does not do what the Budget Reform Act of 1974 called on us to do.

Listen to this. Only four times in the last 35 years--four times in 35 years--have the appropriations bills been completed prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year. What business or what other government entity could operate like that?

The last time Congress successfully passed all of the appropriations bills prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year was 1996. We know it because we have been here. Over and over again, Congress slides from one temporary short-term appropriations bill to the next, months into the fiscal year, until we finally throw it into one big hodgepodge, which is not responsible government, and a lot gets hidden in it.

I want to raise the question--I know my friends on the Budget Committee have thought about it. I sense my time is up. I wonder whether we need a commission to take a look in a short period

of time, 6 months, at the budget process we are following now and make recommendations for a new process that will work. Maybe it is a lack of political will and an inability to take on these tough issues now, but maybe it is the process, and maybe that is something sooner than later we can work together on.

I thank Senators Conrad and Sessions for allowing me to speak as long as I was able to.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the mission of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, is broad and diverse. The men and women of DHS protect our borders and modes of transportation; they guard our waterways; they protect U.S. and foreign leaders; they prepare for and respond to disasters; they manage our immigration process; and, they defend us against cyber attack. DHS employees provide selfless service to their nation and they do so with honor and distinction under an ever-present threat. With National Police Week 2012 commencing, I would like to pay tribute to the Department of Homeland Security's agents, officers, and military personnel who lost their lives in the service of our Nation. Fifty-five courageous men and women of DHS have died in the line of duty since the Department's inception in 2003. We owe them more than a tribute on this day, but our gratitude begins with that.

They are:

Lorenzo R. Gomez, Immigration Enforcement Agent, U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, El Paso, Texas, End of

Watch: November 8, 2003.

James P. Epling, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Yuma, Arizona, End of Watch: December 16,

2003.

Nathan B. Bruckenthal, Damage Controlman Third Class (E 4),

U.S. Coast Guard, Iraq, End of Watch: April 24, 2004.

Travis W. Attaway, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Harlingen, Texas, End of Watch: September

19, 2004.

Jeremy M. Wilson, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Harlingen, Texas, End of Watch: September

19, 2004.

Philip C. Lebid, Special Agent, U.S. Secret Service, Tampa,

Florida, End of Watch: November 22, 2004.

George B. DeBates, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Casa Grande, Arizona, End of Watch:

December 19, 2004.

David G. Wilhelm, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Atlanta, Georgia, End of

Watch: March 11, 2005.

Christopher J. Smith, Assistant to the Special Agent in

Charge, U.S. Secret Service, Atlanta, Georgia, End of Watch:

March 25, 2005.

Nicholas D. Greenig, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Tucson, Arizona, End of Watch: March 14,

2006.

Jessica E. Hill, Lieutenant (O 3), U.S. Coast Guard, Arctic

Ocean, End of Watch: August 17, 2006.

Steven Duque, Boatswain's Mate Second Class (E 5), U.S.

Coast Guard, Arctic Ocean, End of Watch: August 17, 2006.

David N. Webb, Senior Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border

Protection, Ajo, Arizona, End of Watch: November 3, 2006.

Ramon Nevarez, Jr., Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Lordsburg, New Mexico, End of Watch: March

15, 2007.

David J. Tourscher, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Lordsburg, New Mexico, End of Watch: March

16, 2007.

Ronald A. Gill, Jr., Port Security Specialist Third Class,

U.S. Coast Guard Reserve, Puget Sound, Washington, End of

Watch: March 25, 2007.

Clinton B. Thrasher, Air Interdiction Agent, U.S. Customs

and Border Protection, McAllen, Texas, End of Watch: April

25, 2007.

Richard Goldstein, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Indio, California, End of Watch: May 11,

2007.

Robert F. Smith, Air Interdiction Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, El Paso, Texas, End of Watch: May 22,

2007.

Eric N. Cabral, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Boulevard, California, End of Watch: July

26, 2007.

Julio E. Baray, Air Interdiction Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, El Paso, Texas, End of Watch: September

24, 2007.

Luis Aguilar, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and Border

Protection, Yuma, Arizona, End of Watch: January 19, 2008.

Jarod C. Dittman, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, San Diego, California, End of Watch: March

30, 2008.

Thomas G. Nelson, Captain (O 6), U.S. Coast Guard, Oahu,

Hawaii, End of Watch: September 4, 2008.

Andrew C. Wischmeier, Lieutenant Commander (O 4), U.S.

Coast Guard, Oahu, Hawaii, End of Watch: September 4, 2008.

David L. Skimin, Aviation Survival Technician First Class

(E 6), U.S. Coast Guard, Oahu, Hawaii, End of Watch:

September 4, 2008.

Joshua W. Nichols, Aviation Maintenance Technician First

Class (E 6), U.S. Coast Guard, Oahu, Hawaii, End of Watch:

September 4, 2008.

Nathaniel A. Afolayan, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs

and Border Protection, Artesia, New Mexico, End of Watch: May

1, 2009.

Cruz C. McGuire, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Del Rio, Texas, End of Watch: May 21,

2009.

Robert W. Rosas, Jr., Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Campo, California, End of Watch: July 23,

2009.

Che J. Barnes, Lieutenant Commander (O 4), U.S. Coast

Guard, San Clement Island, California, End of Watch: October

29, 2009.

Adam W. Bryant, Lieutenant (O 3), U.S. Coast Guard, San

Clement Island, California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009.

John F. Seidman, Aviation Maintenance Technician Chief

Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island,

California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009.

Carl P. Grigonis, Avionics Electrical Technician Second

Class (E 5), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island,

California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009.

Monica L. Beacham, Avionics Electrical Technician Second

Class (E 5), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island,

California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009.

Danny R. Kreder, Jr., Aviation Maintenance Technician Third

Class (E 4), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island,

California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009.

Jason S. Moletzsky, Aviation Maintenance Technician Third

Class (E 4), U.S. Coast Guard, San Clement Island,

California, End of Watch: October 29, 2009.

Mark F. Van Doren, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Falfurrias, Texas, End of Watch: May 24,

2010.

Sean D. Krueger, Lieutenant (O 3), U.S. Coast Guard, La

Push, Washington, End of Watch: July 7, 2010.

Adam C. Hoke, Aviation Maintenance Technician First Class

(E 6), U.S. Coast Guard, La Push, Washington, End of Watch:

July 7, 2010.

Brett M. Banks, Aviation Maintenance Technician Second

Class (E 5), U.S. Coast Guard, La Push, Washington, End of

Watch: July 7, 2010.

Charles F. Collins II, CBP Officer, U.S. Customs and Border

Protection, Anchorage, Alaska, End of Watch: August 15, 2010.

Michael V. Gallagher, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Casa Grande, Arizona, End of Watch:

September 2, 2010.

John R. Zykas, CBP Officer, U.S. Customs and Border

Protection, San Diego, California, End of Watch: September 8,

2010.

Shaun M. Lin, Maritime Enforcement Specialist Third Class

(E 4), U.S. Coast Guard, Portsmouth, Virginia, End of Watch:

October 13, 2010.

Brian A. Terry, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Naco Cochise, Arizona, End of Watch:

December 15, 2010.

Jaime J. Zapata, Special Agent, U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement, Mexico City, Mexico, End of Watch:

February 15, 2011.

Hector R. Clark, Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Yuma, Arizona, End of Watch: May 12, 2011.

Eduardo Rojas, Jr., Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Yuma, Arizona, End of Watch: May 12, 2011.

Dale T. Taylor, Lieutenant Commander (O 4), U.S. Coast

Guard, Point Clear, Alabama, End of Watch: February 28, 2012.

Thomas J. Cameron, Lieutenant Junior Grade (O 2), U.S.

Coast Guard, Point Clear, Alabama, End of Watch: February 28,

2012.

Fernando Jorge, Aviation Survival Technician (E 7), U.S.

Coast Guard, Point Clear, Alabama, End of Watch: February 28,

2012.

Andrew W. Knight, Avionics Electrical Technician (E 4),

U.S. Coast Guard, Point Clear, Alabama, End of Watch:

February 28, 2012.

James A. Hopkins, Electronics Technician (E 6), U.S. Coast

Guard, Kodiak, Alaska, End of Watch: April 12, 2012.

Richard W. Belisle, Civilian Employee (WG 8), Chief

Boatswain's Mate (E 7), Retired, U.S. Coast Guard, Kodiak,

Alaska, End of Watch: April 12, 2012.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, I ask unanimous consent to call up the Warner amendment No. 2071, with a modification that is at the desk, and I ask that it to be considered in the original order of the previous agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I thank all our colleagues. We have made good bipartisan progress on a bipartisan bill that I think will go a long way toward solving the current crisis situation in our U.S. Postal Service.

We have several amendments remaining, approximately nine rollcall votes--hopefully fewer as this goes on--and a number of other amendments that we hope will be considered by a voice vote and perhaps even, in the wisdom of the sponsor, withdrawn. At least I look at the occupant of the chair, and I know he is a man who is very wise, and I thank him.

Mr. President, in the normal order, Senator Manchin of West Virginia is next up.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, respectfully to my dear friend from West Virginia, I am going to oppose this amendment, and let me put it in this context. The U.S. Postal Service is in trouble. It is losing about $23 million or $24 million on the average every day, more than $13 billion in the last 2 years. It is not going to survive if the status quo prevails. It needs to change. This bill provides for change but in a way that we think is balanced and reasonable. My friend from West Virginia has introduced an amendment that would prohibit all change for the next 2 years and therefore I think open the way for a kind of death spiral for the U.S. Postal Service.

There are many protections in our bill before a post office could be closed, even more or just as many before a mail-processing facility could be closed. We added more protections yesterday with the McCaskill-Merkley and the Tester-Levin amendments, but they allow change because without change this Postal Service of ours will die.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, next on the list is Senator Paul's amendment No. 2026.

I object on the same grounds we discussed earlier in this debate. It is irrelevant to the subject matter of the Postal Service.

I thank my friend from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 2076

Mr. President, this is an excellent and thoughtful amendment introduced by the Senator from New Mexico, and I am glad to support it. I urge that it be accepted by voice vote.

Mr. President, next is the amendment offered by Senator Paul, amendment No. 2027.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, next on the list is Senator Cardin's amendment No. 2040, which I understand he will withdraw.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Maryland for moving expeditiously. I hope it will continue.

Next is Senator Paul's amendment No. 2028.

Mr. President, I respectfully oppose this amendment. This would actually fracture the U.S. Postal Service as we have known it, as a national institution that maintains national standards, including the promise of universal service wherever one lives or does business, by authorizing localities to break away. I think that in doing so, it would jeopardize the foundation promise our Postal Service made since the beginning of universal service. So I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, the next amendment is Senator Carper's amendment No. 2065.

I thank my friend from Delaware.

Amendment No. 2029, as Modified

Mr. President, we go now to Senator Paul's amendment No. 2029.

Mr. President, I support the amendment. The underlying bill requires the Postal Service to send us a detailed plan for attaining long-term financial solvency. This amendment would add several factors to the list of items that should be considered in the report. I think it strengthens the bill, and I urge its adoption by voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2066

Mr. President, next is Senator Carper's amendment No. 2066.

Mr. President, I support the amendment on executive compensation. I believe it addresses this matter in a manner that President Bush 41 might have called prudent. I urge it be adopted by a voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2039

Mr. President, the next amendment is Senator Paul's amendment No. 2039.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, next on our list--we are moving well; I thank my colleagues--is Senator Casey's amendment No. 2042.

Amendment No. 2042

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment by my friend from Pennsylvania. Everybody acknowledges that the Postal Service is in crisis, losing $23 million a day. Mail volume has dropped 21 percent in the last 5 years. That means everybody--we simply cannot afford every mail processing facility that exists because there is not that much mail anymore.

The Postal Service will only survive if we change it. Our bill allows for orderly change. This amendment would basically maintain the status quo for 4 years. I think doing so is a kind of invitation to the Postal Service to go into bankruptcy. Our country cannot afford that. So, respectfully, I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The next amendment is Senator Paul's amendment No. 2038. He has asked that I withdraw from the list that amendment on his behalf.

Next is Senator Landrieu's amendment No. 2072.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu for proposing this amendment. I support it enthusiastically. It will strengthen the protections regarding the closing of processing facilities, and it requires the Postal Service to take into account the impact of any potential closing or consolidation on small businesses.

This amendment reminds us how many people and how many businesses, including particularly small businesses, across America depend on the

U.S. Postal Service and why it is so important for us to change it to save it. So I thank my friend from Louisiana for proposing this amendment.

I urge adoption of this amendment by voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

Next is Senator DeMint's amendment No. 2046.

Amendment No. 2046

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. It is taking a bill that has the urgent purpose of saving the U.S. Postal Service-- changing it to save it--and bringing in a matter of internal labor union business.

The fact is no postal employee is forced to join a union, but once one does, the union leadership can guide the policy positions the union supports through the democratic processes within the union. No postal employee himself or herself is forced to involuntarily support the advocacy or political activities of a union. That is their choice-- whether to join it. But once they do, their leadership has the right to participate in a political process.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

Madam President, next we have Senator McCaskill's amendment No. 2030.

Amendment No. 2030

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

Madam President, we will go to Senator Pryor's amendment No. 2036.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Arkansas. This is a good amendment, and I support it wholeheartedly and move its adoption by voice vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

We will now go to Senator Rockefeller's amendment No. 2073.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

Some questions were raised about parts of the bill relating to accessibility to Medicare by postal employees. I think there has been a good meeting of the minds with this modification. I support the amendment as modified and urge its adoption by voice vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

Before we get to Senator Rockefeller's second amendment, Senator Coburn has asked me to withdraw amendment No. 2059 on his behalf. I thank him for that.

Amendment No. 2074

We will now go to Senator Rockefeller's amendment No. 2074.

Madam President, I support the amendment, as modified, and urge its adoption by voice vote.

Madam President, next on the list is Senator Schumer's amendment No. 2050.

Madam President, I urge the adoption of the amendment by voice vote.

Madam President, I move reconsideration and ask the motion be laid on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2071, as Modified

Next will be Senator Tester, amendment No. 2032. Senator Tester is not on the floor right now. I know we were building up to Senator Warner's amendment as the last amendment, but this may now be the second-to-last amendment. Next we will have Senator Warner No. 2071.

Madam President, I move for reconsideration and ask the motion be placed on the table.

The excitement builds now as we move to the last amendment. Senator Tester has amendment No. 2032.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Montana for his amendment. He explained it well and I urge its adoption by voice vote.

Madam President, I move for reconsideration and ask that motion be laid on the table.

Madam President, colleagues, we have completed all the amendments on the bill and we are ready to vote on final passage.

Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 1789 and give the Postal Service both the financial footing and the business tools it needs to compete in this new communications age.

Let's start by facing facts. USPS is losing business and losing money. If we

do nothing, on May 15th the Postmaster will be allowed to implement his own downsizing plan, which is far more severe than this bill allows and will lead to a loss of jobs and services that could be painful in this fragile economy, especially to our small towns and rural communities.

We have another choice.

To all my colleagues who say they are worried about the burdens the Postmaster's proposal to close 3,700 post offices will impose on families and businesses of their states, I say: ``Vote for this bill.''

It requires the Postal Service issue service standards that ensure communities throughout the country have access to retail postal services, and requires offering alternatives to closures, such as reduced hours at existing facilities, or permitting private contractors or rural carriers to provide services.

To all my colleagues who worry about the loss of postal processing facilities in their states, and the jobs and services that will go with them, I say: ``Vote for this bill.''

While it permits the Postal Service to eliminate excess capacity, it also requires it to maintain an overnight delivery standard--although for somewhat smaller geographic areas. And the maximum standard delivery time--3 days for a letter mailed anywhere in the continental United States--would remain unchanged.

That means fewer plant closings.

To all my colleagues who worry about the loss of Saturday delivery, I say: ``Vote for this bill,'' which takes a responsible, balanced approach to this difficult issue.

The bill prohibits implementation of 5-day delivery for 2 years and requires the Postal Service to determine if the other cost-saving measures in this bill have made cancelling Saturday service unnecessary--and to tell us how it plans to cushion the impacts on the businesses and communities it serves if it decides to go to five days.

Only if the Comptroller General and the Postal Regulatory Commission review the evidence and conclude that the change is necessary, will the switch to 5-day service be allowed.

To all my colleagues who worry about the Postal Service's bleak financial outlook, I say: ``Vote for this bill,'' which provides crucial financial breathing room to help ward off some of the drastic cuts I just spoke of.

First, not one dollar of taxpayer money is being used. This is not a postal ``bailout.''

Roughly $11 billion in USPS overpayments to the Federal Employee Retirement System will be refunded and used to encourage its 100,000 workers at or near retirement age to take voluntary buyouts that could save $8 billion a year.

Money left over can also be used to retire debt.

The bill also reduces the amount the Postal Service has to pay each year to prefund its Retiree Health Benefits, by amortizing its liability over the next 40 years.

This will significantly cut the $5.5 billion annual payment USPS has been making, while still assuring there will be sufficient funds to meet the commitments for future retirees' health benefits.

To all my colleagues who worry that the Postal Service just isn't relevant in the 21st Century, I say: ``Vote for this bill,'' which gives the Postal Service tools to bring in fresh revenues by offering new products and services, such as contracting with state and local governments to issue state licenses, shipping beer, wine and distilled spirits, and creating specialized Internet services.

It also sets up a blue ribbon panel to develop a new strategic blueprint for the Postal Service for this new age.

Finally, in many ways the debate over postal reform is a mirror of the overall budget debate--but writ small.

We confront a financial crisis that could wreak havoc on our economy were the Postal Service to run out of money and be forced to severely slash services. Yet no one wants to cut any services or raise any rates on anybody.

This bill will not solve all the problems that confront the Postal Service, but it is a beginning. This bill represents a clear-eyed and pragmatic way forward for the Postal Service--one that avoids panic or complacency.

It is the kind of balanced and bipartisan approach we will need to deal with the even bigger problems with fast-approaching deadlines racing towards us--like the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the sequestration of military funding.

So to my colleagues who worry about our ability to get big things done and who want to prove to the American people--and ourselves--that Congress can rise above partisan and parochial interests and work for the good of all Americans, I urge you to pass this bill.

I do want to thank the three colleagues on our committee--Senator Collins, Senator Carper, Senator Brown--for the work everyone did to bring about a bipartisan bill that will bring necessary change to the Postal Service in order to save it. Make no mistake about it, this bill will bring the change that the post office needs to stay alive, serving the people and businesses of our country.

Here is the bottom line. The Postal Service itself says that within 3 years, as sections of this bill are phased in, they will reduce their cost of operating by $19 billion and probably in the year after that they will go into balance. That is what this bill will accomplish.

I again thank my colleagues on the committee and the staffs of both sides and the floor staffs on both sides for the extraordinary work over a long period that was done to get us to this point.

We still need 60 votes to pass this bill. I appeal to my colleagues to do so, with a feeling of confidence that we have met a problem here together and have offered a solution that will fix the problem for our country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, with the passage today of S. 1789, we have given the United States Postal Service--created more than two centuries ago in the age of inkwells and quill pens--the tools to thrive in the age of e-mail and the Internet.

Overall, about 8 million jobs hung in the balance, as well as the needs of every household and business in America that depends on the Postal Service to deliver everything from medicines to spare parts.

Passage of this bill is a bipartisan victory that reflects well on the Senate and I want to take this moment to thank the many dedicated staff, from the majority and minority who helped make it possible.

From my staff on the Homeland Security and Governmental I would like to thank Beth Grossman, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Larry Novey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs; Kenya Wiley, Staff Counsel; Mike Alexander, Staff Director; Holly Idelson, Senior Counsel; Jason Yanussi, Senior Professional Staff Member; Leslie Phillips, Communications Director; Sara Lonardo, Press Secretary; Scott Campbell, Communications Advisor; Rob Bradley, Legislative Aide, and Staff Assistant Nick Trager.

From Senator Collins' staff, I would like to thank Katy French, Deputy Staff Director; John Kane, Professional Staff Member; Katie Adams, Professional Staff Member; Cassie D'Souza, detailee from the Postal Regulatory Commission; Nick Rossi, Staff Director and E.R. Anderson, Press Secretary.

From our Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, which is chaired by Senator Carper and Ranking Member Scott Brown, I also want to thank John Kilvington, Staff Director for the majority and Justin Stevens, Professional Staff Member, from the minority.

And I would also like to thank all of the staff for the majority and minority leaders, especially Gary Myrick and Tim Mitchell and Dave Schiappa who of course make everything happen on the floor of the Senate.

Thomas Jefferson once asked the question: ``What duty does a citizen owe to the government that secures the society in which he lives?''

Answering his own question, Jefferson said: ``A nation that rests on the will of the people must also depend on individuals to support its institutions if it is to flourish. Persons qualified for public service should feel an obligation to make that contribution.''

These dedicated staff members answered Jefferson's call to duty and I am proud to be able to work with such people.

Negotiations on the contours of the bill that would become S. 1789 began last October with members of Ranking Member Collins' and Senator Carper's staffs.

The goal was to create a bipartisan bill that would gain support first in the Committee and then on the floor of the Senate.

Today's vote to pass S. 1789 shows the long nights and weekends that went into this bill were worth it.

So again, my thanks to our staffs and for all the work you do for the American people.