Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, there is a lot of buzzing going on around the Capitol today. Here we are on New Year's Eve, and so many of us had hoped we would have an agreement that would be really a big agreement, a long-term agreement that we would have liked to have had finished maybe by September, certainly by October, but that was not to be. In fact, as we saw in the elections of this year, our country is divided and our House here is divided as well. So it has been hard to come to terms.

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest, because when we have opinions, when we have free speech, when we have elections that put a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Republican majority in the House, we know there is not going to be a clear and precise path. But in the end, it is the best because we have all expressed our opinions and everyone has been heard.

We have had countless meetings in the last few weeks trying to see where people could give and where they couldn't. I have said from the beginning that I am optimistic because I think our democracy will work in the end. From what I am hearing from the different leaders, we are close to an agreement. We are not there, but it is a starting point and certainly a point at which there is already some agreement.

It may not seem as though it should be so hard, but once we do have the framework of an agreement, there are a lot of decisions that have to be made. We have to talk among Senate Democrats and Republicans, and then we have to go to the House and talk to Republicans and Democrats. I think one thing that is clear is there has to be a substantial number of votes on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Rotunda. We will not pass something with all Democratic votes or all Republican votes because it will not pass in the other House. So I think there is a lot of refining of what is a pretty good agreement in the making, but the refining has not yet been finished. I have abiding hope that we will get there.

Time to Reflect

Since this may possibly be my last day as a U.S. Senator--at least my last time to vote. Up until January 2, I am a U.S. Senator, but actually being able to participate at this late date has given me some time to reflect. I so appreciate some of the major communications and opportunities I have had with the real people in my home State of Texas and beyond. I always think of the many times I have been able to meet with our troops in harm's way.

In the early years of my tenure in the Senate, our troops were in harm's way in Bosnia, where there were many conflicts, and I got to visit with them and see what their concerns were and what was on their minds, and then into Iraq and then into Afghanistan. I have visited all of these places and had the chance to talk to our troops. What a person comes away with when they have that opportunity is the understanding that America is in good hands with our younger generation. They have such a great spirit.

I went to the Brooke Army Medical Center Hospital in San Antonio and visited with a young man who had lost both legs in an IED explosion. He had been able to get used to that situation for maybe 2 weeks. So it is reasonable to say he had had the shock of his life. So I went into his room, and there is his wife and his little daughter, who was about the same age as my daughter, sitting there with him.

He says to me: Senator, they won't let me go back, and that is where I want to be.

Then his darling wife pipes up and says: You know what, they took half of you and they are not getting the other half.

Now, if that isn't a story, for both of them to have such a spirit. I was so touched by that.

Just in the last month or so, I was back in San Antonio visiting the wonderful Center for the Intrepid they have for the wounded warriors and their families. It is a recreation center, and it is a place where they can go and cook food and have family meetings. They can play games, and they have extensive learning opportunities with computer rooms. It is a wonderful center they have put together, the people of San Antonio.

This was all spearheaded by a wounded warrior who had been cooped up in a room and wanted to have some ability to get outside the room with his family and have some experiences even though he was still going through treatment. He started raising money, and he raised it from the community and from many other wounded warriors, as well as military personnel, but a lot of the citizens of San Antonio and Texas stepped forward. So this is a wonderful place.

I met a wonderful young man who lost his arm and parts of two of his legs. He was a West Point graduate. He was sitting there, again with his beautiful wife, and I was visiting with him.

He said: I just want to be able to continue to contribute.

And I thought, oh my goodness, here is a West Point graduate who has so much to give and who wants to continue to give. So I came back and I wrote a letter to General Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the Army, and I told him about the young man who lost most of three limbs out of four and who wants to keep contributing. What about making him a military fellow, as we have in our offices, as the Presiding Officer knows? We have military fellows who are Active-Duty military, and they help us. We can have one a year. They help us by providing the military perspective on the things we are doing. Of course, because I have served on the Defense Subcommittee and the Military Construction Subcommittee of Appropriations and the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I love to have those military fellows.

I was so pleased that within just a month or so, when the choices were made for military fellows, this young man was chosen by the Army with the support of General Odierno, whose own son also has lost an arm in combat.

So I think that is a wonderful thing and that on reflection is one of the highlights of my moments to remember.

I also remember some of the great things my staff has done. I have to say, my staff has been the can-do staff of all time. They never take no for an answer. So when we have challenges, individuals who need help-- it may be a veterans' benefit; it may be a Social Security problem-- they have always had the reputation as the staff who tries to do everything possible to come through.

I am very pleased the Senator who is going to take my place on January 3 is going to have my staff director for case work, Joyce Sibley--who has had such a great reputation--continue in that position. She knows the issues. She knows the people. She will be great. I applaud Senator-elect Ted Cruz for making that decision and for keeping most of the staff who have done this wonderful work.

But let me give a couple examples. First of all, we got a frantic call from a friend of mine about a doctor who was trapped on top of Mount Everest. He was a Dallas doctor, and he was trapped up there in a blizzard and not expected to live. They had a terrible loss of some of the people in their climbing group, and a friend called and said: Is there anything you can do?

My wonderful staff, one of whom is retired military and knows so many of the things that could be done, Dave Davis, and Carolyn Kobey, who handles this casework in my Dallas office. Carolyn actually got in touch with the Nepalese Armed Forces and as a result of Carolyn's efforts, they were able to get a helicopter up. Once you get past a certain level--13,000 feet--you have to have oxygen in a helicopter or, obviously, if you are climbing.

So it was something that was a real ask of the Nepalese Air Force and we were able to get them to take that risk and to go up and they were able to rescue Dr. Beck Weathers. He is alive and wrote a great book about that experience from his vantage point. But we were very pleased to be able to take part in something such as that.

I will tell you, maybe the all time great experience was in my Houston office, led by Jason Fuller. We got a call in the Dallas office, and so the Houston and Dallas offices together did this. We got a call in the Dallas office from a woman in Mississippi. She said: I didn't know who else to call, but I knew Senator Hutchison's name. My son is having an asthma attack in Houston, and

I don't know how to get him the help he needs. He is in his apartment by himself.

My staff said: Please give us the information. We will call our Houston office, and we will see if we can get help, which they did. They called the Houston office. The Houston office called 9-1-1. They went out to the young man's apartment. He was, in fact, in a dire circumstance and would have died had he not gotten help right away. But they took him in. They gave him the help he needed, and that young man is alive today.

So these instances are some of the great memories I will have of having a wonderful staff who will go the extra mile and try to help the individuals in our State as well as on the big issues where we also try to make sure we do everything we can to get something that is very important to us, whether it is to America or to Texas or to Texans or to Americans.

These are some of the memories I will take with me as I leave this great body. As I said in my actual formal farewell speech, it is easy to be critical. I saw on television this morning that the esteem of Congress has fallen to 5 percent favorable. I am not surprised at that. As my colleague John McCain once said: Now we are down to blood relatives and paid staff. It is easy to criticize, and there are a lot of reasons to criticize. I will admit things have not been as productive and most certainly the acrimony does show sometimes.

But I am going to say, as I leave, after almost 20 years in this body, the people here are all dedicated. There is not one who is not a dedicated patriotic American. We disagree, sometimes violently disagree, on the way we should get to our goals. But our agreement is on the goal of keeping America the beacon of freedom to the world, to keeping our military strong, to doing right by all our people, whether it is a small businessperson who is creating jobs who is trying to go up the ladder of success or whether it is someone who is in trouble because they have had a huge setback in their lives. Everyone here wants America to continue to be the magnet for the world. We want to be the science and technology innovators who will continue to fuel our economy. It is just how we get there that causes the disagreement.

We have patriotic people who have been elected. I hope for the next 2 years we will put aside the partisan politics, put aside the thoughts of future elections, and try to solve the big issues of our time, because there is a lot of intelligence in this body. There is a lot of ability to come together. I keep the abiding faith that our messy democracy will, in fact, prevail because I cannot think of going to anything else. As long as we can function and show the world we can govern, as we disagree, that will be the example that will forever make our country the best and, hopefully, be a model for others to not think you have to take to the streets, not think you need guns to have the government you want but to show that peaceful transition can be done and also that we can have a lot of discussion, a lot of disagreements, but we can do it civilly.

I leave this body knowing if we just remember the honor we have of growing up in the greatest Nation on Earth, we will recognize that it is our responsibility to give the same to our children and grandchildren. It is the least we can do.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are here just hours before a looming deadline that is going to affect just about every American in some way, and I do believe both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Rotunda want to come to a conclusion that will keep us from having what looks like a complete meltdown of governing in Washington.

Someone asked the question in one of our conferences: When was the last time Congress was in session and voting between Christmas and New Year's? The answer was, since 1970 there has not been such a session. And it has actually happened only four times in the history of our country, and two of those times were dealing with World War II.

So I think the enormity of the issue is very clear, and that is why we are here. I think we should have done this 6 months ago, a year ago. I think all of us agree we should not be here at this last hour still trying to negotiate a point at which so many Americans are going to be more heavily taxed.

I was pleased to see that the distinguished deputy leader on the Democratic side talked about the three areas we have to address, and deficit reduction is most certainly one of them because we are facing a ceiling of a $16.4 trillion debt that is getting ready to be exceeded. So, yes, deficit reduction and entitlement reform are two areas we must address.

This country cannot continue to have Social Security and Medicare spiraling toward insolvency. We cannot do it. But it is going to take a bipartisan approach. It is not rocket science to see that we have a Democratic Senate, a Republican House, and a Democratic President, and that is going to be the same starting January 3 of next year for at least 2 more years. So we know what we are dealing with, and I think it affects us right now in the fiscal cliff negotiations because we are not going to do anything unless it is bipartisan. We will not be able to pass anything in the House that does not have significant Republican votes in the Senate, and the Democrats in the Senate are not going to be able to support something that will not require some votes of Democrats in the House.

So we are together--maybe it is like a dysfunctional family, but we do have to work together because without bipartisanship, nothing is going anywhere. Therefore, I think you have to go back to negotiations 101, which is that someone in a negotiation has to win some and lose some. The other party in a negotiation has to win some

and lose some. The President is not going to get everything he wants. The Republicans in the House and Senate are not going to get everything we want, nor are the Democrats in the House and Senate.

So we have areas where we can come together, and I have seen it. All of us were talking in the last couple of hours about how we have talked to our counterparts on the other side of the aisle about what could bring us together, and there are very clear areas where we can come to an agreement.

We are not going to be able to negotiate all parts of what we must do to get our financial house in order. We are not going to be able to do tax reform in a comprehensive way, we are not going to be able to do the fixing of and reforming of our entitlement programs, and we are not going to be able to set all of the spending cuts we are going to have to do going forward right here in the next 36 hours. We cannot do it. That has to be done on a basis of determining after many hearings what our priorities are and what the ceiling on spending should be. We must set a ceiling. Is it 18 or 20 percent of gross domestic product? Is it some amount that goes down each year? That is the question that has to be decided after a lot of discussion next year.

But what we can do is avoid a fiscal calamity by not having the sequestration take place on January 2 at midnight--but make that for a very short term. It cannot be 2 years of a moratorium on sequestration because then we would not get to where we need to be in determining the priorities that will lower the rate of spending in this country. Our problem in this country is a spending problem, and with a $16.4 trillion debt, more spending is not going to be the answer.

So let's look at a very short-term avoidance of sequestration because we do not want to disrupt our military when they have boots on the ground in harm's way. We would not do that. We would not do it on either side of the aisle. So we need to talk about some short-term sequestration avoidance but not a long-term one because there are things we can cut in the military budget that will not affect the equipment and the pay and the living conditions of our military. We can cut other things. So we have to be able to come to terms with not having sequestration but making it very short term.

I think it is clear the President has wanted to increase taxes on what he considers the wealthy. I disagree with the President on what is wealthy, and I hope we can come to terms. Even the President has said a $400,000 threshold is something he could accept. Many on the other side of the aisle have said $500,000 or $600,000--$400,000 or $500,000 or $600,000 is something they could work with. And if we do some other things, I believe we could come to a consensus--not something that we like because I do not think we ought to raise taxes on anyone, and I have certainly voted that way, but there is some area where we can have a fix that will keep us from having to go over this cliff and hurt so many people in this country.

I think it is so important that we look at the big-ticket items in a comprehensive way, knowing that we are going to have to do that next year. But there are things we can do right now. I do not know 1 person out of 100 here who wants the AMT to take effect and cause people who make $33,750 to have to pay more taxes. I think we should do away with the AMT completely, but certainly it should not kick in at $33,750. We need to fix it, and I think everybody here agrees we need to fix it.

The distinguished deputy leader was talking about the death tax. Now, he does not think we should fix the death tax. I certainly do. If we go to a $1 million exemption and a 55-percent tax, I think that is going to hurt family-owned businesses, it is going to hurt farms and ranches, and it is going to hurt the people who work for those family-owned businesses. Why is that? It is because the value of farms and ranches, which is land, does not have a revenue stream that allows you to pay the tax. So what do you have to do? You have to sell an asset, but you cannot get the full valuation that is put on it. You cannot do it. I have owned a manufacturing company, and I can tell you, you cannot sell the equipment for the value that is put on that piece of equipment. So what happens to a family-owned business? They end up having to sell at pennies on the dollar to pay the tax, and people are put out of work. Is that really what we want?

The exemptions we have now are $5.1 million and a 35-percent rate. It would go to $1 million--in 36 or 48 hours--$1 million and a 55-percent rate. And remember, the death tax is a tax that has already been paid again and again and again. It is a tax on the value of the equipment or the land that has already been taxed with a property tax or a sales tax on the equipment.

So there is a reason to have some accommodation in the death tax so that we will not face more unemployed people who worked for a family- owned business or farm, and if it is not the No. 1 issue of the Farm Bureau of this country, it certainly is in the top two or three because they know--they know--what it is like to have to sell land at a value that is not realistic and pay a tax. And a 55-percent tax is pretty confiscatory.

So I do hope we can come together on a bipartisan basis because if we do not come together on a bipartisan basis, nothing will get done, because we have the House that is looking to the Senate, which is supposed to be the adult in the room, and they are looking at us to see how the votes turn out, and we need a large majority on both sides of the aisle to send to the House something that has a firm stamp of approval of this body.

We need the President to be a player here as well. I am encouraged that he is now talking to our leaders and hopefully being constructive. And certainly our Vice President, who served in this body for so long, does understand the importance of the one-on-one talks, and he is talking to, I know, our leader and most certainly the Democratic leader as well.

So the hour is getting late, both figuratively and literally. We do not have much time to settle an issue that will affect the economy of this country.

Last but not least, I am sure the President does not want to have a calamity like this happen on his watch. And I do not want, on my watch, as one who is leaving the Senate this year, for this to be the last thing that happens on my watch. I do not think anyone here is going to benefit from a calamity happening in this country's economy--even for a few days--because it just looks as though we cannot govern.

It is time to realize that on a bipartisan basis we can do some things that will not be universally liked. It will not be liked by everyone in this room because we are not going to get everything we think is right. But we can move our country forward. We can help everyone in this country, every taxpayer.

But we are not going to raise taxes to spend more. We should be saying, OK, if there is going to be a threshold that pays more taxes, we should know it is going to bring down the deficit. That is a very important point that we hope will be determined at the end of this road in 36 to 48 hours.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the looming financial crisis that all of us here are trying to solve. We are here because we know that in 4 days something that will affect every American family in not a very good way is going to happen. We are talking among ourselves, and we are trying to see what could be given on each side of the debate and where we are together. In many areas, we are already together.

The President has said he is for AMT relief, and most certainly we are as well. There are other areas where we are in agreement, such as relief from the marriage penalty and the child tax credit, which have helped so many American families. Yet we seem to dwell on where we are apart and not start with where we are together.

As we speak, our leaders are meeting at the White House. Our majority and minority leader in the Senate and the Speaker and the minority leader in the House are meeting with the President. It will be remembered about the President's term and it will be remembered by Members of Congress if we don't do something that is a compromise. At this point, it has to be bipartisan. There is no question that something has to pass the House and the Senate with votes from the minority party of each chamber.

We have to go to the drawing board, and I hope there is a plan laid out at the White House with the leaders from which we can start that real negotiation. Now, many would say: Really? Should we start now, 2 or 3 or 4 days out?

Well, no. We should have started about 6 months or a year ago, no doubt about it, but we are where we are. So what can be done in a significant way that will ease the concerns of the American people right now? No one wants to see tax increases on every American. No one wants to see America's defense budget decimated, which is what will happen automatically with no action on January 2 with sequestration. No one wants to see unemployment tick up, and no one wants to see another recession when we have barely started on a very slow road to recovery from the last one.

The consequences are enormous. For instance, the child tax credit is $1,000 per child and refundable today. On January 1 of next year, it will be $500 per child and not refundable. The adoption tax credit, which has helped many American families ease the cost of adoption while giving a home to children who wouldn't have one otherwise today, is a $12,650 deduction. As of January 1, it would be $6,000 and not applicable to any child except one with special needs. Even though that is a wonderful thing, why not continue the full amount for every child who is adopted.

The marriage penalty relief will be significantly reduced if we don't do something by January 1.

This is something that hasn't been talked about very much: If an employer provides education assistance, up to $5,250 of the cost of this assistance may be excluded from their tax payment. That provision expires, so that is a huge disincentive for employers to help their employees further their education, which is in everyone's best interests. Today student loan interest deductions are $2,500 per year. That is an interest deduction to pay back a student loan, where someone has had the initiative to get their higher education and borrowed to do it. In 2013, this deduction will only be available for 5 years of interest payments.

The alternative minimum tax, which was meant to hit millionaires when it was enacted years ago, hit an income of $48,000 for an individual and almost $75,000 for a couple in 2011. Because it expired at the end of last year, for tax year 2012, the AMT has gone to $33,000 for an individual and $45,000 for a married couple. A married couple making $45,000 with two children, maybe in college, should they pay an alternative minimum tax? This doesn't make sense to anyone in our country, and it is time we came together to face reality. The reality is we are on the brink of letting a bad thing happen because we are so divided on the edges and we can't come to terms.

There are areas I have talked to my Democratic colleagues about where I know we are together. Fixing the AMT is one. Another one is the estate tax. Today, over 80 percent of the value of a ranch or a farm is a nonliquid, land-based or equipment-based asset. That means if someone dies and they have to pay an estate tax over $1 million, which is what it will be January 1, often heirs have to sell at pennies on the dollar because they can't sell land or equipment for the value that is put on it for an estate. So we are going to throw family-owned farms into a liquidation, which cuts jobs of the people who are working there and also affects the businesses and rural communities they support in Texas and in many other states. None of us want that. I talked to my Democratic colleagues and they don't want that either. Today the exemption is $5.1 million--much more reasonable when we are talking about an asset that is virtually not sellable on the open market. We want to fix that so families can pass their businesses and farms and ranches to their heirs and keep the people who are working there in jobs.

We know we need to boost our economy at the same time we need to take hold of the spending of government. That is something we have talked about for a long time because we know the debt is $16.3 trillion and we know the deficits, which are more than $1 trillion every year, are going to make that higher. It is unsustainable. So we have to address the revenue and we have to address the spending.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee as well as the ranking member because as soon as our leaders get back from the White House I certainly want us to be able to go forward and vote.

To finish my remarks, we must take hold of our financial situation. There is no doubt we are spending too much, we are borrowing too much, and I believe we are taxing too much. It is time for us to hold the line on taxes so they do not go up for the people who would hire people. At the same time, we know we must cut responsibly. We must set our priorities and put a ceiling on spending in this country.

I understand that is going to take more time than the next 4 days, but I implore my colleagues to not let the jolt happen on December 31 at midnight that would hurt our economy, possibly put more people out of work, and jeopardize their family incomes which, in many cases, are barely able to make ends meet today. Let's come together where I know from talking to my Democratic colleagues we could come together. If we can do the things that are necessary to bring us together to avoid this cliff, we need to do everything in our power to do it.

I thank the Chair, and I certainly wish to yield the floor to the Senator from Vermont. I just hope that before December 31 at midnight, if we have to be here to do it, we will come to an agreement that will ease the tensions in the marketplace and in the American family and workplace so we can go forward and give the new Congress the time to look at all these issues and come to the terms of a government that has a Democratic majority in the

Senate, a Republican majority in the House, and a President in the White House whom I hope will bring everyone together.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I want to say that we all will miss Senator Inouye. He was one of the most loved people who have ever served in this Senate. But I also want to say that we have passed on now and will take the bill in its entirety later. But because of the leadership of Senator Mikulski and many others working together, we now have a start on the supplemental appropriation.

We have worked in the Senate together to accommodate the concerns of many on our side about that bill. We have now had a say. I think there will be overwhelming support now for going forward. I think that is due to the ability of Senator Mikulski to step to the plate and become the first woman chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the history of the Senate.

She has already shown the leadership that will continue in her tenure as chairman. I have worked with her as the ranking member of the subcommittee this last year on appropriations. She has been chair, and I have been the ranking member. I will say that every time we have had a disagreement, it has been worked out, and we have passed our bills, our legislation. That is what is going to happen next year as she becomes the chairman of Appropriations. I think it is a good day for the Senate.

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I pay tribute to my alma mater, the University of Texas at Austin, and, in particular, the Texas Longhorns Volleyball team, the 2012 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women's Volleyball Champion.

On Saturday, December 15, 2012, the Texas Longhorns won their third national championship for women's volleyball, and first NCAA Volleyball title since 1988. After reaching their fourth NCAA Final Four in five seasons, the Longhorns outlasted the Michigan Wolverines in five sets in the semifinal to advance to Saturday's championship match. The Longhorns then proceeded to post a .438 hitting percentage in the final--breaking an NCAA record--and swept the Oregon Ducks in three sets to earn the 2012 title.

Longhorn outside hitter Bailey Webster led the way with 14 kills and a .500 hitting percentage in the championship match. After recording 96 kills and a .458 hitting percentage during the NCAA postseason, Webster was voted as the Most Outstanding Player of the 2012 NCAA Division I Women's Volleyball Tournament. She was joined on the All-Tournament team by three Longhorn teammates: Hannah Allison, Haley Eckerman, and Sha'dare McNeal.

This was the first national championship for Jerritt Elliott, the coach of the Longhorns since 2001. Coach Elliott also guided the Longhorns to their fifth Big 12 Conference championship in six seasons and was named the 2012 American Volleyball Coaches Association AVCA Division I National Coach of the Year.

The Longhorns finished the season with a 29-4 record, and were 15-1 in conference action to claim their second straight conference title. Four Longhorn student athletes earned All-America honors. Bailey Webster and Big 12 Player of the Year Haley Eckerman were selected to the first team, and Sha'Dare McNeal and Khat Bell received honorable mention recognition.

Winning the national championship is an achievement which will long be cherished by each of these Longhorns: senior Sha'Dare McNeal; juniors Hannah Allison, Megan Futch, Sarah Palmer, and Bailey Webster; sophomores Khat Bell, Haley Eckerman, and Madelyn Hutson; freshmen Kat Brooks, Nicole Dalton, Sara Hattis, Molly McCage, and Amy Neal; coaches Jerritt Elliott, Salima Rockwell, Erik Sullivan, and special assistant Nathan Mendoza; women's athletics director Christine Plonsky; and University of Texas at Austin president Bill Powers.

One of my favorite scenes in all of Texas is found on the original Forty Acres of my alma mater. There rising 307 feet at the center of campus is the University of Texas Tower. The tower is a beacon for all Longhorns day and night, when it is flooded with light and set aglow against the nighttime sky. It is a particularly spectacular sight when Longhorn student athletes win a national championship, and the tower is bathed in burnt orange with a number ``1'' displayed on all sides to mark the achievement.

With the 2012 Women's Volleyball National Championship, the U.T. Tower has now been illuminated to celebrate 50 athletic national championships. Congratulations to the National Champion Texas Longhorns Women's Volleyball team, and Hook 'em Horns!

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

Madam President, I rise today to address this Chamber for possibly the last time as the senior Senator from the great State of Texas.

I have to say it is an ironic note that if I had given my farewell address last week, there would have been so much joy in the halls of the Capitol, ringing with the laughter and the anticipation of our season's happiest time. But in just one weekend, a sadness has set in with the news of a massacre of innocent children in Newtown, CT, followed by the loss of our wonderful colleague, Senator Danny Inouye.

So I will leave this extraordinary institution and experience with a heavy heart for those who have been lost in the last few days.

I want to thank the people of Texas for asking me to represent them in Washington. I want to thank the many people who have served on my staff for almost 20 years. I have to say I am touched that both benches on both sides of this room are filled with my staff members who have been so hard-working and so loyal and have produced so much in 20 years for our State and Nation, and I thank them.

I want to thank my colleagues and all the people who work here, the Senators, but also those who work behind the scenes to make our lives as good as they can be with the hard hours we all have; those who keep our buildings safe and clean, who work in the libraries, the shops, the cafeterias, and who guide tens of thousands of tourists through our Nation's beautiful Capitol each year.

I want to thank my husband Ray and our two children Bailey and Houston. They are 11 years old now, and so many of my colleagues who were here when I started bringing my children as babies have watched them grow up. The Senate isn't easy on families. They have sacrificed so I could serve the people of Texas, and I am grateful for their patience and generosity. They have loved coming to the Capitol--11 years for the children and 20 for my husband Ray. And I know my children's fondest memory, if I ask them what do they remember most about visits to the Capitol, is playing soccer in the Russell Building's hallways in the evenings when the coast is clear.

I would not be here today if it were not for my parents who gave me the gifts of strong values, unwavering support, and education to be whatever I wanted to be. I must say that my parents were surprised when they saw what I wanted to be. They would never have thought that their daughter, growing up in LaMarque, TX--a town of 15,000 good people-- would think she could be a United States Senator. We had a wonderful public school system, and I am proud to say I am a product of public education. My public schools in LaMarque--which were excellent--and my University of Texas and University of Texas Law School prepared me to be what I could be.

It has been a privilege to walk these halls in the Capitol of the world's greatest and longest serving democracy.

I think back to the days that stand out in our memories. September 11, 2001, of course, is the one none of us will ever forget. We know exactly where we were the minute we knew there was a terrorist attack on America. And though we suffered a horrific attack, the strength, resilience, and extraordinary acts of kindness of the American people showed the world that attempts to destroy our way of life would never succeed. On that day, no one could get in or out of Washington and many communications networks were inoperable. So when the Pentagon was hit and the Capitol was evacuated, my staff and I walked one block to my home on Capitol Hill. Just as an example, the husband of my office manager worked in the section of the Pentagon that had been hit, so we were on the one phone that we had to hospitals, the police, anyone we thought might be able to tell us if he was safe. Thankfully, he was fine. But there were so

many who waited for hours, who called hospitals, to hear from their loved ones. Sometimes the news was a relief and sometimes they waited in vain for good news.

I have to say it was an incredible moment when the Senators who could find each other, wherever they had gone from the Capitol, finally gathered late afternoon in the Capitol Police headquarters to talk to our leaders who had been taken to an undisclosed location. They said, We don't want anyone to come, but we were going to the steps of the Capitol to hold a press conference. We don't want anyone there because we don't know if it is safe, but we want to tell the press that we are going to open for business tomorrow and do the Nation's business, even though there was suspicion that the Capitol had been on the terrorists' list of targets.

Every single one of the Senators--and I think there were 60 to 70 who had made it to the Capitol Police headquarters--did come to the Capitol steps, as did Members of the House of Representatives. After the press conference was held by the leaders, all of the several hundred who had gathered spontaneously broke out singing ``God Bless America.'' That was a time that said this is the strength of our country and we will not be defeated.

As I exit the Senate, I am aware that we are divided as a legislative body and as a country. I do not think we have different goals--not here, and not in America--but we do have different ways of reaching them. Congress suffers a great deal of criticism for partisan acrimony. But while we may disagree politically and air our opposition in this Chamber, it is the conversation behind the scenes that cements and defines our relationships. I will leave the Senate knowing I have worked with men and women of great patriotism, intellect, and heart on both sides of the aisle.

I wish to thank my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, for the many wonderful years working together. We seconded one another at times and engaged in rigorous debate in others. Yet the American people should know that either way, we are collegial and we all understand that our States have different needs and there will be differences in priorities. But in the Senate, an adversary today will be an ally tomorrow. It is a rare occasion for acrimony to turn personal.

It would be my parting hope that this collegiality will not be lost. Protecting the rights of the minority has assured that every Senator's voice is heard and every State represented is heard, as intended by our Constitution. Open debate and open amendments are what differentiate the Senate from the House.

When our committees function, we pass bills in vigorous markups, we put the bills in shape for floor debate. If they don't go through committees and are not allowed floor amendments, the quality of the legislation suffers and mistakes are often made.

Let me give you some examples of how relationships can produce results.

During the anthrax scare, the Hart Building was closed for a month, which made it very difficult, of course, for Senators based there to do their work. So Senator Dianne Feinstein's staff joined in my offices in the Russell Building. My chief of staff at the time gave them full access. One of Senator Feinstein's staff members commented on that: A Republican office giving Democrats free rein? But my chief of staff said, They had full access because we trusted them.

Senator Feinstein and I have teamed up to pass important legislation--the Hutchison-Feinstein Overseas Basing Commission--that studied the training capabilities and costs of overseas military bases to determine their value compared to American bases. This resulted in consolidation and closures that brought thousands of troops back to the United States where training and rapid deployment were superior. We passed the Feinstein-Hutchison Breast Cancer Research Stamp bill that, through voluntary purchase, has raised $72 million for breast cancer research. That was Senator Feinstein's idea. And Senator Feinstein and I took the Amber Alert for abducted children nationwide, which has accounted for rescuing almost 600 children since its passage.

I remember when Senator Hillary Clinton stopped by with her chief of staff to wish me happy birthday the first year she was in the Senate. It was just a few months after she had arrived, and my staff was surprised--and possibly a bit star-struck--to see the former First Lady walk into the room. We went on to work together on Vital Voices, a global partnership dedicated to supporting and empowering women leaders and social entrepreneurs in emerging economies. We also teamed up with Senators Mikulski and Collins to assure public schools had the option to offer single-sex schools and classes, after I visited with Secretary of Education Rod Paige the Young Women's Leadership Academy in the Harlem area of New York City--one of the first and most successful pilot projects for girls' public schools, with which I know the Presiding Officer is very familiar.

I remember the time I invited Senator Barbara Mikulski to Texas, because she and I have worked together supporting NASA for so many years, and this year she has been chair and I ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee funding NASA. We went to visit the Johnson Space Center because I wanted her to see the great work they are doing there. Then I took her to the Houston rodeo because I wanted her to see the Texas culture. Well, I am not sure the Senator who grew up in the inner city of Baltimore knew exactly how people would dress at the rodeo, but suffice it to say there were a lot of rhinestones and cowboy boots and big hair and big hats. Senator Mikulski whispered to me during this time, Kay, if we were here Monday and we went to the Chamber of Commerce, would these people look like this? And I said, Yeah, pretty much.

Senator Mikulski and I also teamed up to pass the Homemaker IRA, to make sure our stay-at-home moms and dads would have the same opportunity for retirement security savings that those who work outside the home have, and it has been a huge success. We also cosponsored the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. She is a skilled legislator and a dear friend.

Senator Jay Rockefeller has been an outstanding chairman of the Commerce Committee. We don't always agree, but as the lead Democrat and Republican we have worked hard to reach consensus, and we have gotten things done--the FAA bill, started the planning for the next generation of air traffic control systems; the highway bill; the NASA reauthorization that ensured we would keep the focus on our space program that has been instrumental in our national security and economic development, with tremendous help from Senator Bill Nelson, who is the only one among us today who has actually been into space.

In a Congress that has been marked by little progress, we have found a way forward. For some, that might not be something to take pride in. But we have served the American people by passing legislation that keeps the country running, and I am very proud of what we have been able to accomplish. Our Commerce Committee has been one of the most productive in the whole Congress. And I count him as a friend.

Maria Cantwell and Harry Reid and I have worked to address the issues of our State's taxpayers to have the same deductions as those who have income taxes, though we do not, and that parity has been so important.

Leader Mitch McConnell has guided our party and our conference through the past 6 years. He is a gifted leader and one whom I have witnessed time and time again come up with strategies that have gotten things done in the right way.

Senator Jon Kyl and I have worked on immigration and death tax relief. Senator Lamar Alexander and I have championed the America Competes Act, so we would continue the priority of scientific research and that we would never fail to invest in research because it is the sequel for our economy.

I am very pleased the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and the Finance Committee--Finance Committee now and Judiciary before--is also on the Senate floor. He has been a wonderful friend to me, helping me in my very first election when he was the rock star at my fundraisers in Texas. I thank Senator Orrin Hatch for his long membership in this body.

I have had the wonderful, good fortune to serve with two colleagues from my home State. First, Senator Phil Gramm, who was a wonderful mentor and colleague. They broke the mold after Senator Gramm. We always enjoyed our school rivalry--he being a Texas Aggie and me being a University of Texas alum--they like to call them hopeless Tea-sips, but we are proud Longhorns.

I have had a great relationship with my other Senator, who is soon going to be the senior Senator from Texas, John Cornyn. John Cornyn, I am very pleased to say, is going to get the opportunity that I have had all these years when people trip up and introduce me as the senior citizen of Texas. I turn that mantle over to my colleague, Senator Cornyn.

I am very proud he is going to be the deputy Republican leader in the next Congress. I know he is going to be a steady hand at the wheel as we try to steer the ship of state in the right direction. He has proven time and again that his steady leadership is the one that rises to the top. I thank him for being on the floor as well today.

In fact, I want to praise our entire Texas congressional delegation. We call it Team Texas. It is a spirit that holds our delegation together, Republicans and Democrats. I have noted that there are those in Washington who think Texans are a little too loud, and we have a little too much fun, but I can assure everyone that Team Texas' hearts are as big as our mouths.

It has been a long and wonderful 19-plus years. We hit the ground running, and we have never stopped. When I was first elected in a special election in 1993, we had two--actually four full planeloads of people flying up for my swearing in. Because it was a special election, we filled the entire gallery. Those rowdy Texans were so happy to watch my little swearing in ceremony. It was a great day for me, as well as my wonderful and loyal friends and supporters.

I started having weekly constituent coffees that first year because there were so many visitors from Texas and I wanted to make sure at least there was one time every week that any Texan who was here who wanted to see me could come and visit and was welcome. So every Thursday morning around 9 or 9:30, the person in charge of this first effort was the wife of a three-star general who volunteered her time in our offices. I think it was as much her handling of the event as the idea itself that has led many other Senators to take up this practice and get a chance to always visit with their constituents at least once a week if they were otherwise going to committee meetings or having to do their work and were not able to see everyone. I want to thank Gert Clark for putting her stamp on our Senate hospitality.

Some of the most powerful moments that will stay with me forever were spent with our members of the military. Visiting with them where they are in harm's way across the world is one of the most moving of all experiences. I will never forget the first time, in the early 1990s, flying into Sarajevo in an undercover C-130 that was disguised as a Red Cross delivery of peas--2,000 pounds of peas that we actually had on the C-130--and I have to say my good friend, Danny Inouye, was on that trip with us, as I look over at his empty desk with the white flowers, as was Senator Ted Stevens. We flew in to see our troops in Bosnia.

Later I went back to Bosnia to spend Easter with our troops where we had the most beautiful Easter sunrise service I have ever attended or ever will. It was in an open-air hangar with our service men and women who were deployed there. For the first time it was a Texas Guard unit that was in command of the base, and it was the first time since the Korean war that we had a Guard unit in command of an operation overseas. They did a great job, which led to many Guard units from other States also to take command of bases and operations.

I flew out of Baghdad--this was in the last few years--in another C- 130 when there were no lights on the plane and no lights on the runway to make sure there was no clue to the enemy that we were leaving when they were firing missiles around the airport. Or the times I had visited Afghanistan, where the first time I visited with Senator McCain, our troops were sleeping on cots. There were probably 600 or 700 cots in an old Russian-built aircraft hangar, before anything had been brought in for living quarters for our troops. All of their belongings were under their cots, and that was all they had for that first mission into Afghanistan.

I have always been one who has such great respect and gratitude for our men and women in uniform. They put their lives on the line and pledge to give their all for our freedom. The power to wage war is an enormous one, and the weight of its responsibility should rest heavy on our shoulders.

I leave this Chamber proud to have worked to assure our men and women in uniform have the best training, the best equipment, and the quality of life to do the job we are asking them to do. Because of my deep respect for our Armed Forces, my first choice of committees when I came in 1993 was Armed Services, and I was honored to be the first woman in 20 years to chair a subcommittee on Armed Services. The woman before me was Margaret Chase Smith. As the only woman to chair the Senate Republican Policy Committee, I was pleased to be a part of Republican leadership for many years--again, the first since Margaret Chase Smith.

When I was first running for office I said I wanted to make things better for our sons and open for our daughters. I leave the Senate knowing that January will see the greatest number of female Senators in our Nation's history. I know the torch will be carried on by the next generation.

It is no secret that Texans have a particular sense of state pride. I am no exception. I have deep Texas roots. The Senate seat that I hold first belonged to Thomas Jefferson Rusk, my great-great-grandfather's law partner and good friend. They both signed the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico in 1836. That history reminds me every day that we must protect the freedom that so many of our ancestors fought to produce and retain. My colleague sitting on the Senate floor is in the Sam Houston line, and that is a proud line too. Thomas Jefferson Rusk and Sam Houston were the Commander in Chief and Secretary of War of the Texas Army when we fought for independence. It is so fitting that those two were our first two selected Senators when Texas became a State in 1845.

Each summer I take a week to tour one part of Texas on a bus. It has been so much fun. We did the first one, which was the El Camino Real de los Tejas that we had just passed a bill to designate as a national historic trail, and we went from the Louisiana border to the Mexican border. It took us a week on the bus. It was so great that we have done it every year since in a different part of Texas. It is my State staff's favorite week of the year as well.

I am one of the few to have had the opportunity and the absolute pleasure to visit all 254 counties in Texas. I have met Texans from all walks of life who have opened their homes, their businesses, and shared their stories.

I will be sad to leave, but it is time. I believe strongly that we should keep the lifeblood of Congress pumping. It is good to have new waves of legislators come in with fresh ideas and perspectives after every election. But while I believe that new generations should invigorate Congress, I also want to say a few words of praise for experience.

Knowing the history of an issue is essential to monitor progress. Knowing what an agency should be doing, knowing what was put in law and why allows for better oversight. The expertise of our longer serving Members is an essential part of good governance.

I hope some of the priorities I have championed will continue. Investment in science, technology, and higher education and encouraging more young people to study science, technology, engineering, and math, known as STEM, will make sure we are bringing forward those young minds with the creativity and the engineering background to create the economies for the future. It is so important. This has been the lifeblood of our economy, and it must continue.

Saving the manned space exploration program and ensuring the long- term future of NASA is an essential generator for our economy. Ensuring that stay-at-home moms and dads who worked so hard raising children and

contributing to the community have spousal IRAs to save for retirement, and easing the marriage penalty by doubling the standard deduction-- these are a few of the things I hope will continue to be championed as I leave.

It has been such an honor to serve in the Senate. I leave with the hope that the values that built America into the greatest Nation on Earth will be protected so that future generations will have the same opportunities we have had in this great country, opportunities for which our forebears sacrificed so much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for just a moment to let me say thank you to all the wonderful Senators who have spoken and said nice things. It is one of the few times Senators sort of pause and wish someone well, as they are leaving. It has truly been very touching, and I appreciate the kind words of the Senator from Michigan. It has been a distinct pleasure to have colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel we have done so much together. My hope is that as I am going out the door, the collegiality of the Senate will never change.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise this sad day to comment on the passing of a great patriot, Senator Daniel Inouye. He fought for his country as part of the Greatest Generation and served his State with distinction for more than 50 years.

We were all honored to know him and blessed by his sacrifice in defense of American freedom. We served together on the Armed Services Committee and later on the Appropriations Committee as well. Danny's insight was invaluable to our Nation's defense and military policy. He did make America stronger.

I had the pleasure of working with him when we traveled together to Bosnia to visit our troops in the very early stages of that conflict. We later went to the Middle East on a CODEL with Senator Stevens as well. One of the pictures in my office is of Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, Senator Snowe, and myself in our helmets and flak jackets the first time we flew into Sarajevo in the early 1990s, when the Serbs had still been shooting from the hills into the airport.

In 1995, on the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, Senator Inouye and a number of other World War II veterans gathered at the Smithsonian to reminisce about their time in battle.

Senator Inouye recalled the morning of December 7 at Pearl Harbor, when he recognized that the men in the Japanese planes looked like him, and he said he knew then his life would never be the same.

As soon as the Army permitted Japanese Americans to volunteer, he signed up and ventured to the mainland of the United States for the first time in his life. He and his fellow Hawaiians of Japanese descent worried about how they would be treated in the United States but, as he recalled it, they encountered kindness and respect at every stop their train made.

By the time he finished his training and prepared to depart for Europe, he said he had learned this was truly a country worth dying for and certainly one worth sacrificing an arm in order to preserve our freedom and our way of life. He did lose his arm, and it was during this time that he also distinguished himself to earn the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military award in our country for valor.

There is often talk of partisan acrimony in Washington, but we know strong friendships can form across party lines. Senator Inouye and Senator Ted Stevens had such a friendship. They were both war heroes from the last two States to join the Union, and they both recognized and guarded the congressional prerogatives under our Constitution to play the primary role in determining appropriations to fund the government.

When they were the two senior Senators on the Appropriations Committee and on the Commerce Committee, they considered themselves as cochairs and officially designated each other as that. When control of the Senate changed hands, it was not unusual for one to retain key members of the other's staff.

So today, I add mine to the many voices mourning his passing and say to his family: You are in our thoughts and prayers.

Danny Inouye was someone in our Senate whom I think we should all strive to be; that is, he was a warrior, but he was a gentleman. He was a man who was loyal to the core for not only his beliefs but also his friends, and if he gave his word, his word was good. He is someone whom every one of us who knew him cared for and regarded as a giant among us. In fact, I would say the Senate has lost a gentle giant.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, Texas A&M University students, faculty, alumni, and fans--known as the 12th Man--are filled with pride and joy over the first Aggie to win the Heisman Trophy since John David Crow's Heisman-season in 1957. Johnny Manziel was named the 2012 Heisman Trophy winner for his incredible accomplishments on the gridiron. Texas A&M finished this season ranked No. 9 nationally with a record of 10 wins and 2 losses including an impressive victory in Tuscaloosa, Alabama over the previously ranked No. 1 University of Alabama, Crimson Tide.

At a young age, Johnny Manziel's parents, Paul and Michelle Manziel instilled a discipline to succeed. Their parenting laid the groundwork for his competitiveness and strong work ethic. Raised in Tyler, Texas, and a graduate of Tivy High School in Kerrville, Texas, Johnny was a high school star athlete never willing to back down because of his size or age.

Johnny's time at Texas A&M may not be extensive but his freshman year statistics and accomplishments are not short of anything but extraordinary. Johnny is the first freshman in National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, history to ever win the prestigious Heisman Trophy. Johnny also became the first freshman and only the fifth player ever, in NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision, FBS, history to achieve 3,000 passing yards and 1,000 rushing yards in a season. Incredibly, Johnny became the first player in the FBS to pass for 300 yards and rush for 100 yards in the same game three times in his career. He also earned the Davey O'Brien Award, presented annually to the best NCAA quarterback.

On Saturday, December 8, 2012, Johnny Manziel was recognized as the greatest college football player of the year. The Heisman Trophy is the most prestigious award in college sports, and no one is more deserving of this honor than Johnny Manziel.

Congratulations to Johnny Manziel on a truly memorable season; to his family, who provided the foundation for his abilities; to his teammates and to all of Aggieland. This is truly a historic ending to a tremendous freshman season.

I am so touched by the comments of my colleague Senator Mikulski about myself and Olympia. I appreciate so much that she has singled us out because Senator Mikulski is a pioneer. She didn't build the pyramids, I might say, but it was close. She was in the House first and then came to the Senate. She is our longest serving woman Senator and she will probably be dean of all the Senate at some point because she is a legend. She is a legend in the Senate, she is a legend in Maryland, and she is a legend in our country.

I think back now on the things we have been able to accomplish--and it was not just because we were women--here in this deliberative body where we have 100 people representing 50 very different States. It is not that the men were against anything we have teamed up to do, but it is because of our experiences that we brought to the table. Sometimes it wasn't thought of before, before Senator Mikulski and other women came.

I will point out a couple of things and embellish a little on what the Senator said. When we wrote the book ``Nine and Counting,'' there were nine women in the Senate at the time. But it came from something much bigger. It came from a meeting Senator Mikulski pulled together of the women of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It was the Catholics and the Protestants who were trying to probe the women Senators, the nine of us who were here, about how they could be effective in making peace in Northern Ireland.

When we started telling our stories to them, to encourage them that they could make a difference in Northern Ireland, Barbara Mikulski and I looked at each other and we said: You know, there is a book here. There is a book about the obstacles women have faced getting to the U.S. Senate and a book that can encourage our girls and young women to play a part in settling the major issues of our country.

From that background, we contacted Bob Barnett, who was an agent of Senators and House Members who write books, and also Cabinet members and Presidents, and we said we would like to get together and write a book. He immediately got to work. It was Claire Wachtel at HarperCollins who said: ``Oh, I love this. I love it.'' She got a writer who went to each of us and interviewed us and then wrote our stories, which were in our own words.

Afterward, we got together and decided to give all of the proceeds to the Girl Scouts of America, which was a common organization that had affected almost every one of the women at the time. The Girl Scouts were giving leadership capabilities to the girls in our country. I had been a Girl Scout and so had Barbara. Our book is still in print and it has raised tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars for the Girl Scouts to continue their leadership programs. And it all came from something we learned about each other.

I think the multiple myeloma disease, which my brother has, and which Geraldine Ferraro had, was another area where Barbara and I bonded. I bonded with Geraldine Ferraro too, who was a champion for women up and coming in our political system. She encouraged me a lot.

But together with Barbara Mikulski, who was a dear friend of Geraldine Ferraro's, and who spoke at her funeral--we both went to that funeral--we were able to pass legislation that provided funding for research and education for multiple myeloma. We named it the Geraldine Ferraro Multiple Myeloma Education Program so that more could be learned about this very rare disease.

Gerri was a fighter and she only died a year and a half ago. My brother is a fighter and he is still doing great. And now, because of our research, we are maintaining and we are letting people live a quality life because we teamed up.

Barbara told the story, but I will tell the other side--the rest of the story--about the Houston rodeo, because they still talk about Buckboard Barb. She came to the rodeo from her ethnic background in Baltimore, and she was such a great sport. I was riding my horse in the grand entry and Barb was in the buckboard. She was waving and having the best time, and of course all of us were in our rodeo attire, which was sort of foreign to Barb, I have to say. But she was right in there with her boots and her big cowgirl hairdo. And Barbara leaned over to me at one of the rodeo events and she said: OK,

Kay, if we were here Monday morning and we went to a chamber of commerce meeting, would these people look like this?

I still tell that story in Houston, TX, which they love, and, of course, I said: Oh, yeah. Which wasn't true. But I loved it. She was the best sport, and they still talk about her. They did give her a cowboy hat that was to die for.

Let me mention one other thing. I know Senator Akaka is here, so I won't take up much more time. We teamed up on the issue of single-sex schools. The Senator from Maryland mentioned her Catholic girls school upbringing. Well, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Mikulski, Susan Collins, and myself teamed up to ensure that every girl in this country has the opportunity, if their school board decides to offer it as an option, to go to a girls school. And likewise for every boy whose school board decides that it would be better for boys--in middle school especially and high school. We teamed up after about 15 years of trying, starting with Jack Danforth from Missouri. He started the effort to allow single-sex schools in our public entities in America. When I came here in 1993, we finally passed it with our coalition saying: We know this can be better for some girls and some boys. Not all.

I will say to the distinguished Acting President pro tempore that it was the Young Women's Leadership Academy in Harlem, NY, that gave us the courage to say this can be done, because they fought all the efforts to not allow it; all the lawsuits. They stood up. Hillary Clinton went to visit the Young Women's Leadership Academy, and I took Rod Paige, the Secretary of Education, right there to New York and I said: Secretary Paige, we can do this for all Americans. We can. Hillary and I and Barbara and Susan said: We are going to do it. We did, and it was a great accomplishment.

I just want to end by saying that I so appreciate Barbara Mikulski and John Cornyn introducing the bill to name the Homemaker IRA for me. It means so much to me, because I experienced as a young single woman starting an IRA, getting married, and being told I couldn't provide any more for my own retirement security. And I knew there were so many women who, through divorce or the death of a husband, had gone in and out of the workforce or never been in the outside workforce, couldn't save for their own retirement security. When I went to Barbara, I said: Barbara, it is a Democratic Senate, so I will make this bill the Mikulski-Hutchison bill to get it passed. Senator Mikulski said: Not on your life, it will be Hutchison-Mikulski because it is your idea. And she worked just as hard as if it were the reverse. That says more about the Senator from Maryland than anything I could say. So thank you, Barbara, for introducing the bill that would name it for me because I know it will help women long after I leave.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I know there are those on my side who would also like to have a conference to talk about this. Could we have an indication as to the timeframe of the vote?

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Casey- Hutchison amendment which was added to the bill before us last week. I did not speak before the amendment was agreed to, but I think it is important to highlight it, particularly in light of things that happened just last week in Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the need to address entitlement reform as part of the impending fiscal cliff.

I am not just going to talk about the macro issue, I am going to talk about specifics on a way that we can at least do one entitlement reform, Social Security, and make a difference for the long-term future of Social Security and the millions of Americans who depend on it and have earned it.

It is so important that it be part of the discussion today. So much of our short-term consequences and needs for the fiscal cliff have dominated the discussion. Well, that is okay; we are 1 month away, after all, from dire circumstances. However, we cannot avoid talking about the long term because that is what we have been doing that has caused us to reach a fiscal cliff. We need to look at entitlements. According to Medicare trustees, for instance, Medicare paid $35 billion more to beneficiaries than it took in last year in payroll taxes, and its trust funds will be depleted 12 years from now if we don't act to save Medicare in a responsible way.

The other issue that is not being talked about very much at all is Social Security. In 2010 and 2011, Social Security expenditures, the benefits paid to retirees and the disabled, exceeded payroll tax revenue for the first time since 1983. So as a practical matter, we know the Federal Government is borrowing to pay the Social Security needs of today.

Last year, 2011, the Social Security trustees reported that with benefits paid continuing to exceed payroll, the trust funds would be depleted in 2036, after which the program would have a net unfunded obligation through the end of Social Security's 75-year valuation window, and that net unfunded obligation would be $6.5 trillion. After reading the trustees' report last year, I drafted the Defend and Save Social Security Act to preserve and strengthen Social Security for 75 years. The longer we delay, the longer and more painful the fix will be.

I keep hearing Members of Congress, and even the President, saying Social Security is off the table; we are not going to talk about it when we are talking about the fiscal cliff. That is an astonishing statement for the President and Members of Congress to say, that we are not going to talk about 56 percent of the spending in this country, that it is off the table, because that is what mandatory spending is-- 56 percent of our spending in this country on an annual basis. Of that, let's take out Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which is 44 percent of the total spending of our country.

According to the Social Security trustees--1 year after the 2011 report--the Social Security trust fund reserves, because we waited 1 year to do anything about it, will now be depleted in 2033. That is 3 years earlier than was estimated just 1 year ago. And the unfunded obligation for the 75-year window has now grown to $8.6 trillion.

So we can see what happens with just 1 year of delay to the security of Social Security and the capability to keep it going. In 21 years, if we don't do something there will be severe cuts or severe increases in taxes that will be automatic. Without any act of Congress, they will be automatic. Talk about a fiscal cliff now, think about the cliff Members of Congress will face then because we didn't do our job in addressing this issue when the solutions were there in a relatively clear glide path that would be relatively unnoticed in most households.

Let me lay out what will happen: There will be a 25-percent automatic cut to the retirement payments and the disability payments that are going out now in Social Security. That would be an average of $308 per month.

The Social Security trustees put it straight out there. They have two ideas to shore up Social Security right now: One is to immediately and permanently increase the combined payroll tax on employees and employers from 12.4 percent to 15.01 percent. That would be a one-fifth increase in the payroll taxes that are, in the norm, being paid today.

The other alternative they suggested is to cut core benefits right now by $200 per month. They said that would do it--$200 per month in cuts to Social Security checks.

I don't think anyone in America believes that is feasible or even desirable--either of those options. So what can we do? We can act now. We can reform Social Security without cutting core benefits and without increasing taxes on people who are working today.

I introduced a new version of my Defend and Save Social Security Act after the 2012 report came out from the trustees, and it covers the 75 year window and the shortfall of $8.6 trillion which is estimated, and it doesn't raise taxes on the people working today.

Here is what it does: It increases the age of retirement very gradually. When I introduced my bill just last year, it wouldn't have affected anyone who was 58 years old or older. But in just that 1 year, because the deficits in Social Security payments going out have occurred, today it is 59 years of age. No one 59 years of age or older would be affected. For everyone else it would be a very slow increase of 3 months per year. For instance, the normal retirement age would reach 67--going from 66--by 2019, 68 by 2023, 69 by 2027, and 70 by 2031. The early retirement age would be increased to 63 by 2019 and 64 by 2023.

The second point: The COLA--the cost-of-living adjustment--would be reduced slightly when inflation is 1 percent or more. Inflation has averaged about 2.5 percent, so there would be a COLA, but it would be about $12 less if inflation is kicking in above 1 percent.

There would be no core benefit cut at all, just a slightly smaller COLA increase if inflation goes up, and then we would have a secure system. It would be a system that would last 75 years. We would not have the $8.6 trillion added to our deficit and no core benefits would be cut.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. President, let me just say that is not the only thing we could do. We could change the cost

of living to the chained consumer price index. That would be OK. It wouldn't get us as much of a deficit reduction over 75 years--a chained CPI--but it would get us at least into a better position if we increased the age rate.

I just want to give a note of history. When President Reagan was facing the same issue, and the Senate was one-party dominated and the House the other, he got together with House Speaker Tip O'Neill, and they formed a commission which started the increase in age that we have today because people were living longer and they were working longer. We can do the same thing President Reagan and Tip O'Neill did, because our government is a similar configuration, by coming together and acknowledging that people are living longer and are working longer.

We can make accommodations for people who are in particularly physically strenuous jobs. I think all of us understand people in those jobs may not be able to work as long. We can do those things and fix this issue in a responsible way. Let's do it now. One more year is going to make it that much worse. We have added $2.1 trillion to the deficit in just 1 year. We can do this.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for giving me the extra 2 minutes to say let's do it now. In fact, the Senator from Arizona has been a cosponsor of my bill to fix Social Security. We cannot address the fiscal cliff without talking about entitlements and mandatory spending, which is 56 percent of our spending. Anybody can do the math on that.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I think we all know that everybody in America is pretty much talking about the fiscal cliff, and that what will happen at the end of this year will have an enormous impact on the economy of our country and its future. There is no doubt about it. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the impending tax hikes that will take effect at the end of this year if we don't do something along with the spending cuts called sequestration would plunge us into a recession in the first half of 2013. It would also set off credit downgrades and drive up interest rates on credit cards, mortgages, and personal and government debt. They predict unemployment will rise above 9 percent, and the cuts in spending, half of which will be in the defense sector, certainly is going to leave America vulnerable.

If there is anything Congress and the President are responsible for, it is the national security of our country. We can stop this fiscal cliff.

We can answer the calls of the American people who have said clearly, loudly, and repeatedly: Get together and make things happen.

I am happy to see our distinguished Madam President is sitting in the Chair and agreeing because we know there is common ground. We have seen groups of our Senators, Republicans and Democrats--a Gang of 6, a Gang of 8, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, all of these entities--that were bipartisan in nature and they came up with solutions. Did we agree with 100 percent of what was in those plans? No. But there are nuggets we can start from, and what we have to do is sit down and start.

Republicans are saying tax increases in this economy are not the right formula. We know if we tax 100 percent of every person who makes over $200,000 it is not going to affect the deficit. It is not going to have the impact I think people expect when they hear: Oh, we will tax the rich, since it will not affect us, and that will solve the deficit problem. It will not. It will have no impact on the deficit.

Who will be hit if these tax increases go into effect--which they automatically will at the end of December if we don't do something? Who will be hit? Well, it is going to hit the middle class, small businesses, family farmers, retirees, and married couples.

If the individual income tax brackets are not extended, the current six brackets will be five brackets. It will revert to pre-2001. The lowest end is the one that is going to go up in percentage the most. The 10-percent bracket will go to 15 percent, and the 15 percent stays at 15 percent. So the people who were paying 10 percent will now go to 15 percent if we don't do something.

The rates of the remaining four brackets will also increase: 25 percent becomes 28, 28 to 31, 33 to 36, and 35 to 39.6, almost 40 percent. On top of that is the individual alternative minimum tax. We have each year extended the tax relief for what we call the AMT, the alternative minimum tax.

The alternative minimum tax was put in place to target a few millionaires. Now, because of inflation and wage increases, it is targeted right at the middle class. Unless that relief is renewed this year, it will boost 2012 taxes for 31 million Americans in the $30,000 to $40,000 wage range.

Now, really, do people making $30,000 or $40,000 deserve to have a new alternative minimum tax on top of the tax they are going to pay, which will be 25 or 28 percent? I don't think so, Madam President, and it is not what the AMT was meant to target.

The increase in tax rates are going to certainly affect our small businesses. The economic engine of America is small business. The economic engine of America is not big business, although big business is very important, and it is not government. It is small business. Over 60 percent of the jobs created in America are created by small business. Yet they are the ones who are not hiring. They are the ones who see their slim margins of profit getting so much slimmer they are not hiring people because they think the costs are going to be higher because of the new taxes that are impending.

Seventy-five percent of small businesses pay taxes at an individual rate because they are S corporations or are flow-through businesses. So if we look at them and then look at those rate increases, that is going to be an immediate impact on every small business owner who is organized in that way. With over 20 million Americans still looking for work, do we really want to have this kind of economic hit? We need our small businesses to feel confident, and so we need stability.

I have talked to so many small businesspeople in the last month as I have been out talking to people in my home State and in other States. What most of them say comes down to they just need to know what their tax liability is going to be, and they need to know it is going to stay that way for a while. That is how they make their plans. They do not want to hire someone if we are just going to have a 6-month fix or a 1- year fix or a 2-year tax policy. A 2-year tax policy is a nightmare for businesses because they cannot make a long-term plan. They can't have a strategy that puts three more people on the payroll and then have those costs go up at the end of that 2-year period.

It is important we give our businesses stability and that we show we understand they are the economic engine of America and that we want them to succeed and to hire people and give new jobs and get this unemployment rate well below the nearly 8 percent that it is now down into the 6-percent or 5-percent range.

Now, let's talk about the elderly. All of these years I have heard people talking about the importance of saving for retirement, and we have encouraged people to do that. The people who have done that are looking at a huge tax increase.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 more minutes.

These are people who have done the right thing. They have saved. They have tried to make sure they didn't need any kind of government handout. They have earned Social Security--and that is not a government handout--and they want to know they can make it living the lifestyle they want to live because they have saved. But here we are talking about raising their taxes on the dividends of any stock they might have invested or might have been in their company 401(k) plan, and we are talking about raising the capital gains rate.

In fact, the dividends rate could be as much as 39.6 percent. Nearly forty percent on dividends is going to kill a plan for retirement, and it is just not right to change the rules when we have had a lower dividend tax rate or capital gains tax rate for people who have done the right thing and saved for their own security. That is what will make a strong economy, and for our retirees to be able to get the rest they deserve.

What about married couples? One of my longstanding priorities in the Senate has been to make sure we have a level playing field on deductions of State and local taxes. Some States have income taxes, some States have sales taxes, some have both, and a few have neither. But for those who have both, we give them the choice of a sales tax deduction or income tax deduction. That means on their Federal income tax they don't pay taxes on the taxes they pay. If they are paying a State income tax or a State sales tax, they should be able to deduct at least one of those because there is no reason to be taxed on taxes. The sales tax deduction expired at the end of last year. If we don't renew it, the people who have sales taxes and no income tax are going to be severely disadvantaged.

In my home State of Texas, that makes at least a $500 difference to every person who takes those deductions. That can be a lot for 2 million Texans who claim this deduction, to have an average of $500 they are paying on taxes. So it is not a level playing field if we don't renew that extension. There are eight States that have no income tax, and they do have sales taxes. So I am hoping we will have that kind of parity in taxation, which we must do by the end of the year to allow that equity to take hold.

A second priority of mine is the marriage penalty. I passed the original amendment that would double the standard deduction for married couples. This has been a hugely popular tax deduction because in the past, when two single people got married, they would go into the higher bracket, and they would not get a double standard deduction. Prior to 2001, 25 million couples paid a penalty for being married, and the average cost to them was $1,400. As an example, if a Houston policeman, with a taxable income of $50,000, is marrying a data entry clerk who makes $30,000, they are going to have a tax increase of about $800 a year because the marriage penalty will come back at the end of this year.

We enacted relief in 2001. It was my amendment. And I hope we will not leave here December 31 of this year without renewing the marriage penalty tax relief. It will mean $800 for married couples, as an average, and, for sure, that is something they deserve when they get married. They shouldn't have to pay more for their decision to get married. So if we don't extend the tax cuts that are in place right now, at the end of this year we are going to see tax relief for the middle class, small businesses, family farms, retirees, and families go away. That relief will go away, and all of their taxes are going to go up. That is not even counting the surcharges that are going to take effect January 1 of next year in the health care law on dividends and capital gains.

So if the dividend rate goes back up to 20 percent, it is going to be 23.8 percent. If someone is in the 39.6-percent bracket, it is going to be 43.4 percent. So it is something we must deal with.

The other side of the equation is spending. Madam President, we must do something about the $1 trillion deficits we have had year after year after year that have made this debt go up from $10.6 trillion 4 years ago to $16.2 trillion today. We are about to hit our debt limit, and that means we are going to have to increase the debt that is already a wet blanket on this economy.

So, Madam President, we must come together.

We can do it. We can cut spending. We can address entitlement reform that will bring our entitlements into an actuarial soundness. Social Security and Medicare have already sustained enormous cuts in the health care plan that was adopted 2 years ago, and we can't sustain either of those programs if we continue to go in the direction we have been going.

So rather than the sequestration--which is going to take more than $1 trillion out of federal programs, half of which is going to come from defense--we have got to do something about it now.

We have a 10-year plan that could cut the deficits. But we have got to do more. We have got to enact the next step in budget cuts, and it has got to include entitlement reform, in my opinion. I know there are disagreements about that, but that is the argument and the discussion we need to have. It is our responsibility.

We should be using this time--today, tomorrow, this week--to start putting together a framework of discussions, because we will be in session from the end of November probably up until right before Christmas, and the American people deserve to have a solution, something that assures small business that they can count on a tax structure that is fair, that can allow them to make a reasonable profit, and allow them to hire more people.

We have got to cut spending so we can manage this government in a responsible way without it encroaching on the vibrancy of our economy. That is our challenge. I hope this Congress is up to it.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

How much time is remaining on our side?

Thank you. Are there other speakers on our side? Let me ask the Chair to notify me when there is 10 minutes left in case Senator Collins comes or someone else. So I would like to have up to 10 minutes and be notified.

Mr. President, I rise to speak against revoting this cloture motion, and the main reason is that we are not going to be allowed to have amendments. That is unacceptable because although we have worked diligently with the sponsors of the cyber security bill on the floor, a number of the ranking members of the relevant committees that have jurisdiction over cyber security have an alternative bill, the SECURE IT Act, that we would like to be able to put forward as an alternative or have an amendment process that would allow our approach to have a chance to prevail anyway.

Now, we are aware that the President is signaling his intention to issue an Executive Order, but an Executive Order is not sufficient to really give the encouragement and the protection to the companies to allow them to share information with other companies that might have the same types of threats in the same industry area or with the Federal Government. I am sorry we are not going to be able to have amendments that would allow us to perfect this bill.

Let me say that the proponents of S. 3414 acknowledge that it is important to have a collaborative effort between the businesses that run almost 90 percent of our Nation's critical infrastructure and the Federal Government. We agree with that, which is why we have worked with the companies that run the private networks to fashion a bill that would give them immunity if they share information and give them the direct sharing capabilities to go directly to the defense agencies because we believe the agencies that work with the communications and the military industrial base companies would have more of an understanding of the needs and what can be done to employ countermeasures in a direct way. The bill that is on the floor, however, requires everything to go through the Homeland Security Department, and those of us who are supporting SECURE IT believe there should be the ability to direction share information with other agencies including the defense agencies.

The sponsors of our bill are the ranking members of eight committees and subcommittees that have jurisdiction in this area: Senators McCain, Chambliss, Grassley, Murkowski, Coats, Burr, Johnson, myself and Minority Leader McConnell. We believe the consensus items in our bill are preferable to the bill that is before us that we are not going to be allowed to amend.

SECURE IT offers a balanced approach that will significantly advance cyber security in both the public and private sectors--first, to facilitate

sharing of cyber threat information between the private sector and government, allowing the information to go to the defense agencies where the response can be direct, not filtered through Homeland Security. Secondly, it gives immunity from liability for sharing among the industries that might be affected as well as the defensive actions that are taken. This is essential because you even need antitrust protection if you are going to share vital information on this issue so that you are not going to get sued for collaborating with a competitor. It is in our country's interest, and I think our private sector companies want the ability to help secure all of our networks because we know this is a real threat.

Secure IT has the overwhelming support of the network operators that are trying to gear up to defend against cyber threats. Because it will help their members protect their networks, we have the endorsement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce dated November 14 of this year.

We also have the endorsement of the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, US Telecom, the National Retail Federation, Financial Services Roundtable, the Internet Security Alliance, and CTIA The Wireless Association.

We can come together to pass the areas of SECURE IT that would allow better cooperation and also an information sharing relationship that they understand and know will help them defend against the cyber attacks. We believe SECURE IT is a superior bill, and we would like the ability to amend the bill that is on the floor to perfect it so we could send a bill to the House.

If we are not able to get this bill this year, certainly I hope it will be started again with all of the relevant committees doing the markups, doing the discussion that is required for a bill of this magnitude. Many of the committees did not have markups. They did not have input into the bill. The committee process does work when we are able to use it, and I hope we will be able to go back to the drawing board, or if the majority would allow amendments down the road, if we have the time later this year, we would love to continue working with the sponsors of the legislation to see if we could come up with the amendments to which everyone could agree.

It has been a tough road. We have all tried hard. I think the sponsors of the bill are sincere in wanting to improve the systems. The ranking members who have cosponsored SECURE IT, who also have jurisdiction of this area, also are sincere. I hope we can come together, hopefully later this year, but if not, certainly in the new year, with the new session, let's start from the beginning and go through all the committees of jurisdiction so there can be a real consensus and a give-and-take.

Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.