Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are on the verge of a historic vote that will determine whether we make America safer and assure that we do everything possible as Senators and citizens to ensure there are no more Newtowns.

On the evening of December 14, when we left the firehouse at Sandy Hook, there was a vigil at a church in Newtown, St. Rose of Lima, presided over by Father Bob, who is Monsignor Robert Weiss. It was a very moving and powerful experience. The church was filled. People stood at the windows to hear what was going on.

The Governor spoke and so did I. I said that evening: The world is watching Newtown. And, in fact, the world was watching Newtown, as we knew from the horror of that afternoon, when many of us arrived at the church, and first at the firehouse, to see families emerging and learning for the first time that their children, their babies, would not be coming home that evening. It was an experience that will stay with me forever. The sights and sounds of that afternoon, filled with grief and pain, will never leave me.

The world was watching Newtown that day and that evening and has watched Newtown and Connecticut in the days and months since, and I have been privileged to spend many hours and days and weeks and these past months with the families.

The world has watched the families, and it has seen in them and in Newtown--a great community, a quintessential New England town--strength and courage that was as unimaginable as the horror of that day, strength and courage that represents what is good about America and what is strong and courageous about our Nation.

The world has watched Newtown and the families of Newtown and it has watched Connecticut. Now the world is watching the Senate. It is watching the Senate to see whether democracy works. It sounds simple, but it is true. Will democracy work to reflect the majority of the United States of America, the majority of our people who say we need to do something about the guns. That is what the families said to me that day and in days since and what people in Connecticut and across the country have said to their Senators: We must do something about gun violence.

I remember talking to one of the families that evening and saying: When you are ready, we ought to talk about what we can do in Congress to stop gun violence. She said to me: I am ready now.

The Senate must be ready now to act. It must keep faith with those families and victims--as the world watches--with Benjamin Andrew Wheeler, age 6. His father David is here today, and Benjamin is here in spirit as we decide in the Senate whether we will move forward toward progress.

Ana Grace Marquez-Greene, also age 6. Her mother Nelba is here today. Ana is with us in spirit.

Dylan Hockley, age 6, whose mother Nicole is here, is also here in spirit.

Daniel Barden, age 7. His mother Jackie and his father Mark are here.

Jesse Lewis, age 6. His father Neil Heslin is here.

Mary Sherlach, one of the six educators killed at Sandy Hook Elementary, whose husband Bill is here--Jesse and Mary are here with us too.

We know compromise and action are possible because two of our colleagues have forged a bipartisan compromise that will enable us to come closer. It is imperfect. It is less than what I would have preferred in achieving universal background checks. It is a starting point. It is a step in the right direction, and it will help us achieve a larger bipartisan compromise because background checks are only one part of a comprehensive strategy that must include a ban on illegal trafficking, strengthening school safety, as well as mental health initiatives and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. I will be privileged to spearhead that effort on high-capacity magazines--hopefully next week--after today's vote, along with colleagues such as Dianne Feinstein, Frank Lautenberg, and my colleague, Chris Murphy.

Today, let us decide, as the world watches, there will be no more Newtowns. That is what the families want. That is what America wants. Let us resolve that we will make democracy work as we go beyond this first step and decide to proceed on a bill that also is imperfect but provides a starting point, provides a way forward, so we can make our communities safer.

The families of Newtown have performed an extraordinary service for our Nation. Not only has the world watched and been inspired by their strength and courage, but they have turned the tide. They have visited with our colleagues and they have impacted this process more profoundly and more directly than any other single group. They have shown we can break the stranglehold of special interests and the NRA, that speaking truth to power still works. To them we owe a special thanks. To them, as a nation, we owe a debt of gratitude for the lives that will be saved, for the futures that will be given. Even if their children and their loved ones will not enjoy that future, they have given futures to countless Americans who will be saved from the scourge of gun violence.

To them I say thank you. They are in this building, and their children, their loved ones, are with us in spirit as we take this historic step.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I join my other colleagues in thanking the Senators who joined us in the vote earlier today. My profound thanks go to all who voted among the 68 to enable this debate to go forward, to provide and permit debate and votes in coming days, and to enable the families of Newtown to have a vote; to enable the victims of Tucson and Virginia Tech and Aurora and Oak Ridge to have a vote.

Voting is what we are sent here to do. The American people hold us accountable when we have votes. Votes enable us to be held accountable and those votes will take place. The vote today is exciting and encouraging and energizing, but it is only a first step. The critical test and profoundly significant steps will be next week when we vote on the bipartisan compromise that our colleagues have fashioned, that Senators Manchin and Toomey have together forged on national criminal background checks.

That is not necessarily as strong as many of us might have preferred. That is not a final or ultimate result on this issue for all time. But it is a solid foundation and a path forward to enable more bipartisan compromise, more momentum and impetus.

The brave families from Newtown who were part of this discussion this week deserve our thanks as well. They turned the tide. They faced our colleagues in meetings, visit after visit,

conversation after conversation--painful, demanding, grief-stricken in recalling those hours after that horrific, unspeakable tragedy. As one who arrived there within hours of the shooting, I saw, firsthand, their unimaginable pain and grief as they came out of the Sandy Hook firehouse after learning for the first time that their babies would not return; loved ones, teachers, educators perishing while trying to save their children in their care.

Those families came to Washington to tell their stories and advocate for change so that others would be spared that same experience, so that others would be spared the same fate as the 3,300 who have died since Newtown and the horror they and their families experienced.

Just 4 months ago the conventional wisdom was that gun violence legislation would never go anywhere in the Congress. In fact, gun violence was politically untouchable. Just days ago, 60 votes was thought to be unreachable as a goal. The fact is the political landscape is changing seismically as we speak. As we deliberate, minds are changing. Voices are piercing that conventional wisdom. The courage and compassion of the Newtown families have disproved and completely defeated the pundits, the conventional wisdom, the prognosticators who said it could not be done.

The world watched that tragedy on December 14 at Newtown. I said on that evening at the vigil at St. Rose of Lima Church: The world is watching Newtown.

Indeed, the world watched Newtown, and today the world watched the Senate as it took this historic, and for many of our colleagues a courageous, brave step.

Today we kept faith with those families and the victims of that tragedy in a first step to finally do something about gun violence. Now we must continue working, taking nothing for granted, avoiding complacency and overconfidence because every step is uphill when it comes to gun violence.

I thank particularly two of my colleagues, Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey, because they stepped forward from States that may not be as receptive to what they have done as others, but they deserve the thanks and gratitude of their States in their statesmanship in supporting and forging this compromise.

I will continue to support and work for a truly universal background check system, but this bipartisan compromise represents significant progress. It is a vast improvement over current law. It will make sure that a lot fewer criminals get their hands on guns. It will make our streets and schools safer.

On the morning of December 14, I--along with Senator Murphy--pledged to do everything I could to make sure more parents will not have to bury their children because of preventable gun violence. Expanded background checks are part of that pledge, and we are helping to fulfill it by supporting it. This is only part of a bigger and more comprehensive solution to this problem, but this compromise is a good starting point for next week's debate on gun violence.

We have talked a lot about Newtown and the victims who have evoked our most powerful grief, breaking our hearts, and evoking memories of our own children at that age. As I said, I went to Newtown as a public official, but what I saw was through the eyes of a parent. Other victims of loved ones evoke the same memories.

Today, I wish to evoke the memory of another tragedy that many of us in Connecticut remember well. It happened at Hartford Distributors, which is just outside Hartford.

On a beautiful morning, August 2, 2010--and a lot of what I am going to summarize comes from this great newspaper account which appeared in the Hartford Courant shortly thereafter.

As the Courant reported:

In three minutes on that bright summer morning, Thornton

executed eight men, shooting them all from behind and

laughing at one point as he chased down a wounded victim.

Thornton went into a kitchenette near the office, saying

that he wanted a drink of water. He pulled a pistol from his

lunch pail and shot operations director Louis Felder.

Hollander said he heard Felder yell: ``Omar, you can't!''

followed by loud bangs.

Hollander was hit by one of the bullets that passed through

Felder. As he crawled into his father's office--

Hartford Distributors is owned by the Hollander family.

Hollander heard Cirigliano yell--``Omar, no! Omar, no!''

Thornton shot Cirigliano twice, once in the back of the head

and once in the forehead.

He systematically executed another six people after those two, and then he killed himself.

The victims that day were men who came to work every day and had families. They came to work expecting to come home at the end of the day. Their families expected them to come home. They were men who had worked in that place for many years by dint of their sweat and backbreaking labor. They had come to a place in their lives where they could enjoy it. They had enough financial security that they expected to enjoy it for some time. That day the killer deprived them of their future and their families' future as well.

Gun violence affects all of us in different ways. I have visited the memorial that was established for the brave men who died that day at Hartford Distributors. It is a quiet, peaceful place that is exquisitely and beautifully done. It evokes the memories of men who died while they were on the job because of a deranged individual who was, in fact, about to be fired.

Connecticut's experience with this kind of death extends to its own facility. The State lottery experienced a similar horrific and brutal slaying. The scene played out in seconds, which seemed to take an eternity, on a Friday morning.

It was a routine morning for dozens of State lottery office workers, and it turned into a nightmare of blood, fear, and betrayal. The shooter was named Matthew Beck, and he summarily executed men and women there that day. Connecticut remembers those State employees who provided public service day in and day out and were killed while they were at work. Again, they were working men and women who wanted nothing more than to go home safely that night.

My colleague, Chris Murphy, has recounted many stories. Many of the stories were about children. All of them had their future ahead of them. Their future ended brutally and horrifically because of gun violence.

We have taken a step today--a first step--hopefully followed by more steps next week.

I wish to end by thanking Members of this Chamber for giving us the opportunity to debate and vote and say to the American people we are willing to be held accountable.

The majority of American people want commonsense and sensible measures to end the violence on the streets, in our neighborhoods, and in our place of work, such as Hartford Distributors and the State lottery. We want to make sure the hard-working men and women who go to their jobs, play by the rules, and expect fairness have the opportunity to go home that night.

I thank this Chamber and the Members who voted today, and I hope those Members will join us in the future so we can make sure fewer victims perish as a result of this horrific epidemic in our country, gun violence.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate and thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, on his profoundly eloquent and powerful statement to our colleagues and join him in calling attention to the horrific tragedy that has brought us to this point in the debate on gun violence. His very eloquent and powerful summary of our losses, I think, is a way to begin a potential turning point after Newtown has given us a call to action. Newtown is a tipping point in this debate, and my colleague from Connecticut and I have spent literally days and weeks with that community and have seen the courage and strength they have brought to this town and to our colleagues, because they have been meeting with our colleagues and they are indeed here today.

Benjamin Andrew Wheeler, who was 6 years old--his father David is here today. Ana Grace Marquez-Greene, age 6--her mother Nelba is here today. Dylan Hockley, age 6--his mother Nicole is here. Daniel Barden, age 7--his mother Jackie and his father Mark are here. Jesse Lewis, age 6--his father Neil Heslin is here. Mary Sherlach, one of the six heroic educators killed at Sandy Hook--her husband Bill is here today.

We can draw inspiration not only from the memories of those children and great educators who were killed but from their strength and resilience and resolve in coming to the Halls of this building, meeting with our colleagues. Indeed, at this very moment, they are with one of our colleagues, looking him in the eyes and saying to him: How can you not approve a bill that stops illegal trafficking, strengthens school safety, and imposes a requirement for criminal background checks? How can you not stop assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that were integral to that killing in Newtown? How can you not do something about gun violence that has caused more than 3,000 deaths since then? How can you not allow a vote? How can you deprive the American people of a vote on a measure that is so essential to their safety, their well-being, the futures of their children, and their communities?

As the President of the United States has said so eloquently--and his leadership has been so important to this cause--the victims of Newtown, of Tucson, Aurora, Virginia Tech, they deserve a vote. The likelihood of a vote has been increased by the leadership of my colleagues, Senator Schumer, Senator Manchin, Senator Toomey, who have worked hard together to bring us to a very promising and profoundly constructive turning point in this process. I want to thank also our leader, Senator Harry Reid, for his determination and resolve.

On the morning of December 14, parents throughout Connecticut and Newtown and Sandy Hook brought their children to school. Thinking of the rest of their days. When they would have play dates and snack breaks, holiday parties, Christmas and Hanukkah present wrapping, paper angels, gingerbread, songs and poems. Those are the memories. And the futures they brought with them. Just hours later, I was at Sandy Hook as 20 families of those children emerged from a firehouse, and I will never forget the cries of pain and grief I saw on that day. I went there as a public official because I felt a responsibility to be there. But what I saw was through the eyes of a parent, as all America did on that day. And I saw the families also of six heroic educators who perished trying to save their children. Those sights and sounds changed America. We are different today than we were before Sandy Hook. This problem is with us, the problem of gun violence is the same problem that has existed for decades, but we are different. Because we know we can and must do something about it.

There was evil that day at Sandy Hook, but there was also great goodness. The goodness of the first responders who stopped the shooting through their bravery. When they appeared at the school, the shooter turned the gun on himself. They saved lives. The knowledge and courage and bravery of the clergy. Father Bob, Monsignor Bob, Robert Weiss, who that evening conducted a vigil that we attended, when many resolved to light candles instead of curse the darkness. The greatness of leadership demonstrated by many of our public officials, beginning with Pat Llodra, the First Selectwoman of Newtown, the legislators who passed in Connecticut a measure that will provide a model for the country in attacking the problem of gun violence and the leadership of our Governor, Dannel Malloy. And, of course, the great goodness of the educators who threw themselves at bullets, cradled the young people seeking to save them, and heroically gave their lives. Their models of courage and leadership should inspire us at this critical moment. They should inspire us to think better and do better and resolve that we will not let this moment pass, we will seize this opportunity and we will demonstrate the kind of leadership the majority of Americans expect and deserve and need at this point.

The majority of Americans want commonsense measures to stop gun violence. The majority of Americans want a vote and they want action from this body. And we need to keep faith with them but also with the victims. The victims who should not be forgotten, the Connecticut effect is not going away. This resolve is not dissipated. We will keep faith with them.

Out of the tragedy, the unspeakable loss, the unimaginable horror of that day and the days since then and the days to come, we resolve that this country will be better and safer. And so as we begin this debate, as colleagues of ours at this moment announce a very promising compromise that may lead us forward, provide us with a path toward bipartisan action--and it should be bipartisan; there is nothing Republican or Democratic about law enforcement or about law enforcement saving people's lives. We should resolve to go forward as one country. I've been working on this issue for many years. I helped to author and support Connecticut's first assault weapons ban in the early 1990s. I went to court to defend it when it was challenged constitutionally, argued in the trial and then in the State supreme court to uphold our law. I have worked with law enforcement colleagues for three decades. And I know they support these measures. Our State and local police, our prosecutors around the country support a ban on illegal trafficking. They support a national background check system. They support school safety and they support bans on military-style weapons that are simply designed to kill and maim innocent people and they support a ban on high-capacity magazines because they know, those are the weapons of war. They enable criminals to outgun them. They put their lives at risk. And so I listen to my colleagues in law enforcement who tell me we need to do something about gun violence. I listen to the people of Newtown who say: Can't we do something about the guns? And I respect the rights of gun owners, the second amendment is the law of the land, and none of these proposals would take guns out of the hands of responsible and lawful gun owners. But there are some people who should not have them.

There are some guns that should not be in use, and there are some weapons of war, high-capacity magazines, that should not be sold in this country. In half the mass killings, high-capacity magazines enabled the shooting that occurred so rapidly and so lethally. In Newtown, the changing of a magazine by the shooter enabled children to escape. In Tucson, the killing of a 9-year-old girl, Christina Taylor- Green, by the 13th bullet, would not have happened if that magazine had been limited to 10 rounds because the shooter was tackled as he tried to change magazines. The high-capacity magazines enabled Adam Lanza to fire 154 bullets in 5 minutes. So these kinds of commonsense measures may not prevent all these tragedies. They may not enable us to stop all the 3,000 killings that have occurred since Newtown. We cannot look back and say with certainty that Newtown would not have occurred if these measures had been in place, but the likelihood would have been reduced, some or

all of those children might be alive today, some of those heroic educators could be in their classrooms now. And the challenge here is to save lives, to do something to stop the carnage and killing on our streets, in our neighborhoods, in communities such as Newtown, a quintessential New England town. If it could happen in Newtown, it could happen anywhere in America.

As we go forward in this debate, I hope we will listen to those brave and resilient and resolved families who are here today. Listen to them when they say to us that we must keep faith. Listen to Nicole Hockley and what she said when the President of the United States visited Connecticut just a couple days ago. She said:

But now there is no going back for me. There is no way. If

you want to protect your children, if you want to avoid this

loss, you will not turn away either.

I ask my colleagues, let us face this reality. Let us not turn away. Let us resolve to go forward and keep faith with the children and the educators who, by their example, provide us with an enormous and historic opportunity to make America safer and better. The Nation that we love, the Nation that we all believe is the greatest in the history of the world and will be greater still after we move forward to make it safer and better.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am honored to stand again on the floor of the Senate, as I will be doing, along with my colleague Senator Murphy and others who are allied in this effort to make America safer and to stop the scourge of gun violence that has plagued this country for decades and has been dramatized so horrifically and tragically by the nightmarish, unspeakable tragedy that occurred in Newtown. I stand here on behalf of the families, but they are speaking much more eloquently and powerfully than I could ever do, as they go around to the offices of my colleagues and look them in the face and say:

How could you not favor a ban on illegal trafficking and straw purchases? How could you not support strengthening school safety? How could you not favor a national criminal background check?

As one police chief told me, a national background check makes sure we do not put criminals on the honor system. Without a criminal background check, criminals are on an honor system to not buy weapons. What kind of a guarantee of safety would that be? And how could you not be in favor of banning the kind of weapon that killed the children and educators of Newtown or the high-capacity magazine that enabled and facilitated that killing to take place? 154 bullets fired in 5 minutes, tearing apart those beautiful, innocent children and six great educators who perished trying to save them.

We are on the cusp of success in this critical first step, and I am increasingly hopeful--in fact, I am confident that we will have a vote in this body on gun safety measures. We will have a vote in the United States Senate to impose sensible and commonsense measures to stop gun violence. We will have a vote in the Senate in a matter of days that will enable America to hold accountable its elected representatives here on this floor in the Senate for measures that will stop gun violence in this country that has killed 3,000 or more people since Newtown. The epidemic of gun violence is stoppable and we will have a vote in this body that makes sure all of us are held to answer to the American people. The majority of the American people favor these measures. Ninety percent or more say they want a national criminal background check. Their voice deserves a vote, and I am confident we will have it.

I am confident, in part, because of the bipartisan compromise that has been announced today. I am going through the details, listening to my colleagues in law enforcement, the mayors, and others who have been so responsible and resolute in working over years and decades for these kinds of measures. And I'm listening to the families from Newtown. And we will make sure this compromise vindicates and upholds the vital law enforcement and safety interests these measures are designed to vindicate and uphold. And I am confident this compromise is a positive and constructive step toward our having a vote, ending unlimited debate on this bill, achieving cloture, and stopping a filibuster, as we have a responsibility to do.

And I want to focus for the moment on one aspect of these measures I consider critically important. A ban on high-capacity magazines--all magazines, all clips that hold more than 10 bullets--that I will be introducing on behalf of Senator Lautenberg, working with Senator Feinstein and others, to make sure this measure has a vote, whether it's as an amendment or a separate bill. I wish to thank Senator Lautenberg for his leadership on this issue. He has championed it here for some time, and I will be working with him and others to make sure this measure I have introduced has a vote, and my colleague Senator Murphy will be working with me in this effort.

The statistics show the terrible impact of high-capacity magazines. A recent study of 62 mass shootings since 1982 shows that half involved high-capacity magazines. Statistics also show bans on high-capacity magazines actually work. The 1994 ban on these devices reduced their use dramatically. A study of gun violence in Virginia showed just 10 percent of guns recovered by police in 2004 used high-capacity magazines, but after the ban was allowed to sunset, the prevalence of high-capacity magazines more than doubled. Garen Wintemute, head of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis School of Medicine, said: ``I was skeptical that the ban would be effective, and I was wrong.'' He said the database analysis offers ``about as clear an example as we could ask for of evidence that the ban was working.'' And the limitation I am proposing--that I will be working on with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Feinstein and Senator Murphy and others who have

championed this cause--would be even more effective. Because unlike the 1994 law, it will prohibit imports of high-capacity magazines, not just production here but imports of these high-capacity magazines. More than ten rounds, we need to say no.

We also have to implement a buyback program for the existing high- capacity magazines in use and circulation today. The proposal I'm advocating allows for better grant funding to be used for exactly that purpose. It doesn't require, doesn't mandate owners of high-capacity magazines participate in a buyback program, but it gives them that option. And over time, this measure will reduce the number of high- capacity magazines out there. The provision I am spearheading was part of legislation actually offered by Senator Feinstein in the Judiciary Committee, approved by that committee on March 14. It's supported by a long list of mayors as well as organizations representing law enforcement.

I ask unanimous consent to have that list printed in the Record.

This provision is supported as well by educators, the civil rights community, health care providers and others. It is a proposal that is eminently sensible, reasonable. It's a matter of common sense. A majority of Americans have consistently supported a ban on high-capacity magazines. A poll in January of this year showed 65 percent of Americans, including 55 percent of gun owners, support such a ban.

But the most powerful argument for a ban on high-capacity magazines comes from the experience of Newtown, where the changing of magazines enabled children to escape. When the shooter changed magazines, it allowed time for the children to evade his nightmarish slaughter.

In Tucson, we know from CAPT Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords, who testified before the Judiciary Committee, that the limitation on that magazine enabled spectators and bystanders to tackle the shooter. If there had been only 10 rounds in that magazine he was using, Christina-Taylor Green, shot by the 13th bullet, would be alive today. We know high-capacity magazines enable and facilitate these mass killings. They don't cause them. They don't compel them. They enable them. High-capacity magazines allowed Adam Lanza to fire more than 150 rounds of ammunition in 5 minutes. And we know from men and women who have lost loved ones that these devices are part of the attacks too often.

Bill Sherlach, the husband of Mary Sherlach, who has come to Washington this week to speak out against gun violence, had this to say about high-capacity magazines. And his wife Mary is with us in this picture today.

It's just simple arithmetic. If you have to change

magazines 15 times instead of five times, you have three

times as many incidents as where something could jam,

something could be bobbled. You just increase the time for

intervention. You increase the timeframe where kids can get

out. And there's 11 kids out there today that are still

running around on the playground pretty much now at

lunchtime.

Another Sandy Hook family member who is with us today, Nicole Hockley, mother of Dylan Hockley, said the following:

[W]e looked at the search warrants . . . and know that [the

shooter] left the smaller capacity magazines at home. That

was a choice that the shooter made. He knew that the larger

capacity magazines were more lethal.

The fact is that Adam Lanza had smaller capacity magazines that were found in his home at the time a search was conducted. He left those behind. He used the 30-round clips. He brought with him three 30-round magazines for that AR-15 because he knew he could fire more bullets more rapidly, more lethally, with a 30-round clip. David Wheeler, who is also here today and is the father of Benjamin Andrew Wheeler, said the following:

The more bullets you can get out the end of that gun in the

least amount of time, that is the single area that I believe

affects lethality. And the size of the magazine placed in

that weapon is a direct contributor to that--a direct

contributor to that factor. There is a place for 30-round

magazines, in the military, on the battlefield.

The families of Sandy Hook have shown tremendous courage and strength. Their resolve and resoluteness are an inspiration and a source of strength to all of us who have spent time with them, who have come to know them, the privilege of knowing them. They have come here to talk about something no one would want to talk about, and they have done it so that no mother, no father, no husband, no wife ever has to again experience the unspeakable and unimaginable horror and tragedy that has befallen them. We owe it to them to vote on this measure. I'm confident there will be a vote. I'm proud to offer this measure banning high-capacity magazines to reduce the scourge of gun violence. There is no turning back, as Nicole Hockley has said so eloquently. There is no turning back from a proposal to ban high-capacity magazines.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Expanding the Panama Canal: What Does it Mean for American Freight and Infrastructure?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2013, at 11 a.m., to hold a briefing entitled, ``Intelligence Update on Syria''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2013, at 10 a.m. in

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Border Security: Frontline Perspectives on Progress and Remaining Challenges.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Identifying Barriers to Indian Housing Development and Finding Solutions''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on April 10, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2013, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax- Related Identity Theft: An Epidemic Facing Seniors and Taxpayers.''

The Committee will meet in Room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I wish to add my thanks to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the leader in this effort to close some of these abusive and unnecessary and wasteful loopholes. I also thank Senator Whitehouse and Senator McCain for their leadership in this effort, which is about fundamental fairness.

Most importantly, let me thank Senator Murray for the hard work, the courage, the strength it has taken to put together a budget that is intensely complex, dealing with issues that are hugely challenging, and craft a solution that presents a vision for the future of America that is very distinct and different, as well as very preferable to the one presented by the House budget. The House insists on a cuts-only approach and absolutely refuses to consider new revenue. The solution crafted by Senator Murray and her committee has opted for balance and compromise--two words that unfortunately are too often missing from our deliberative process.

Our budget achieves $1.85 trillion in new deficit reduction, with an even mix of $975 billion of new revenue and $975 billion in responsible spending cuts. That is a real achievement.

We are here today to talk about cutting loopholes, tax breaks, giveaways to people who don't need them and corporations that don't deserve them. Their existence undermines the fundamental fairness of our Tax Code.

The fact that more money goes to tax avoidance than to tax revenue is a fundamental, searing indictment of our Tax Code, and it is the reason there is resistance to people paying their fair share. Again and again and again, what I hear from citizens, from taxpayers, from residents of the State of Connecticut is, I would be willing to pay my fair share as long as others are required to do the same.

Fairness is at the core of our Tax Code. It is the reason why voluntary compliance is so important and why it happens--because people rely on its fundamental fairness.

The offshoring of profits and ending those offshore tax abuses that have been described so eloquently by Senator Levin and Senator Whitehouse is absolutely necessary to a sense of fairness in our Tax Code. As important as the additional money is the sense of equity it would bring to our Tax Code.

Likewise, fair and effective tax enforcement is critical. I know as an enforcer of civil laws for 20 years as attorney general it is important to a sense of fairness in our society, and effective enforcement requires resources. It requires tightening rules relating to tax shelter promoters; stiffening penalties for the aiders and abettors--the ones who enable violations of our tax laws and tax evasion; and modernizing Federal tax lien registration. We are fond of saying in this body that the devil is in the details. Here, the devil is in nonenforcement of those detailed regulations and rules that require compliance.

Similarly, ending excessive corporate tax deductions or stock options and closing some of the loopholes that apply to derivatives are fundamental to fairness and to preserving a sense that everybody is bearing a fair share of the burden. Those rules that presently permit evasion and abuse must be ended. The consequences are huge because they apply to the vision of the future that each of these rules and budgets contemplate.

The wasteful tax loopholes mean losses in revenue, and those, in turn, mean we must cut programs as a consequence. In my home State of Connecticut alone--just to show some of the consequences of the House or Ryan budget--47,000 seniors would pay more for prescription drugs next year, and that means $828 for each of them, on average, more in the cost of drugs in 2014 alone and more than $13,000 over the next decade.

The House budget would cut $8.73 billion in funding Connecticut receives for nursing care and other health care services for seniors and the disabled, putting at risk tens of thousands of Connecticut seniors who rely on Medicaid for their long-term health care needs.

I have sponsored the Bring the Jobs Home Act, which many others have cosponsored, which would close that loophole for corporations that send jobs and ship employment overseas. We need to bring those jobs back.

The House budget would double down on job-killing cuts to infrastructure and research and economic development programs. The Economic Policy Institute has found that these cuts would cost Connecticut over 24,000 jobs in 2014 alone.

Our economic recovery is fragile. Job-killing cuts must be stopped.

I thank Senator Levin for his leadership on this issue.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in the midst of a profoundly important conversation on the floor of this body about the future of our financial situation with the Federal Government, and I want to thank the Senator from Maryland for her extraordinarily impressive work. I thank her on behalf of myself, Connecticut, and the Nation for her very diligent and dedicated labors to bring us to this conclusion, which all of us hope will take place in the next few hours.

DREAM Act

I want to deal with a separate issue of equal importance that will be enabled on the floor of the Senate if we are able to overcome our differences on this fiscal issue. The issue I am referring to is comprehensive and accountable immigration reform, which this Nation desperately needs. I am working to achieve it, as I know my colleagues are.

The President of the United States has advanced that agenda very compellingly in his proposals that include a path to earned citizenship for the 11 million or more undocumented people in this country, stronger enforcement at the borders against illegal immigration into this country, and stronger enforcement within our borders against illegal employment of undocumented people already here. Of course, we also need a streamlined and fairer immigration process so we can provide a process that comports not only with our due process obligations, but also with the fundamental concept of fairness.

This is not the first time I have come to the floor to deal with one area of immigration reform that ought to be expedited as part of that agenda. I am here to talk about Connecticut DREAMers and their invaluable contributions to their communities and DREAMers across the United States who make those same kind of contributions to our communities and my colleagues on the Senate floor.

Over the last couple of months a tremendous momentum has developed in favor of comprehensive and accountable immigration reform. I am thrilled by these developments. They are tremendously heartening, and I commend my colleagues for their profoundly significant work. Most importantly, I look forward to seizing this unique and historic moment and the opportunity to reform our broken immigration system.

The DREAM Act would give young immigrants who have been brought to this country as children a chance to earn their citizenship through education or military service. The idea about immigration reform is to achieve earned citizenship. These young people--or DREAMers, as they are often called--are undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country at a young age, as infants, or young children through no fault or choice of their own. America is the only home they have ever known. English is the only language many of them know. Their friends are here, their life is in this country, and they make invaluable contributions to this great Nation.

I thank one of my colleagues and friend, Senator Durbin, for his championing this cause over many years, and in fact, he introduced the DREAM Act 11 years ago and has tirelessly and relentlessly fought for its passage. He has come close to success, and my hope is that immigration reform will include this vitally important measure.

The immigrants who would benefit from the DREAM Act identify as American. But our immigration system affords them no direct path to achieving legal immigration status, let alone citizenship.

The DREAM Act would give them a chance to earn legal status if they meet several requirements such as having come to America as children, having good moral character, having graduated from high school, and completed 2 years of college or military service.

A DREAMer who meets these requirements can apply for legal permanent residency and pursue a path to citizenship.

DREAMers who live in our communities but fear deportation have been given some relief by the President of the United States, in effect, a temporary reprieve. But they still lack the security and permanency, and they should be given it, even after the President's program. Because just as they were given that reprieve administratively, they can also lose it in the same way at the end of 2 years, which is the limit currently of the reprieve from deportation they have been granted.

Two million immigrants nationwide would benefit from the DREAM Act. There are between 11,000 and 20,000 DREAMers living in Connecticut, and one of them is Vanessa Bautista. I am going to place her photograph on this stand and say to the people of Connecticut, we should be proud of Vanessa. I am proud of Vanessa. She was born in Ecuador and came to America at the age of 10, raised by her grandmother and reunited with her parents here in America. Soon after joining her parents in Connecticut, Vanessa learned English and she began school. She had a dream to go to college and become a nurse. As a teenager, she worked cleaning houses. She babysat. She saved money as much as she could for college because it was part of her dream of becoming a U.S. citizen and giving back to the greatest Nation in the history of the world.

She was accepted to Southern Connecticut State University, having to

pay the entire tuition. During her first year at Southern, she worked full time and went to school full time. She did both full time--had a job and sought an education. She doesn't remember having any rest during that year, not surprisingly. She went to school in the morning and then worked and babysat every night until midnight. Even with this challenge, she achieved a 3.9 GPA that year. She dreams of graduating from college and one day working as a registered nurse. She wants to give back, which she will do, and she will give back to the country she calls home. But she understands these dreams will be out of reach unless this body, this Congress, this Nation, approves the DREAM Act and the rights she is seeking.

I say in conclusion, I urge my colleagues to work hard on the issues at hand, which are fiscal in nature. They are key to our future in this country. But equally important to this great Nation of immigrants is providing a path to earned citizenship for young men and women such as Vanessa, their parents, and the 11 million people in this country who now live in the shadows. Let us enable them to come out of the shadows, pay fines and pay back taxes, show they have no criminal record, and otherwise meet the strong criteria we should establish as part of that pathway to earned citizenship, and truly achieve for Vanessa and the DREAMers what is certainly the American dream: Work hard, play by the rules, and you will be recognized for what you achieve, what you earn, what you give back and contribute to the greatest Nation in the history of the world.

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

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

Madam President, in the midst of this momentous debate, truly one which will determine the future of the country, I rise on a matter of equal importance, in my view.

Today we welcomed to the Capitol 26 bicyclists, riders who left Saturday morning on this journey. This journey led them to travel the roads from Newtown, CT, to dramatize the importance of actions against gun violence in the United States.

I have said about Newtown that we saw on December 14 of last year enormous evil and depravity in the deaths of 20 beautiful, innocent children and 6 dedicated, courageous educators who literally perished trying to save the lives of those children. We saw evil that day in Connecticut, but we also saw enormous goodness and heroism in the educators who sought to save those children and the first responders who charged into the school. They did so not knowing what would befall them, what they would see, and thereby stopped the massacre.

The community came together in support of the families and all who were affected so deeply by that tragedy. This community has demonstrated enormous strength and courage over these months. It is an example of the quintessential values which make us proud to be an American.

The riders who came to the Capitol, who rode from Newtown on a rough and difficult journey, also showed something profoundly significant and important about Newtown as a community, as well as about themselves. They included as an honorary rider a parent of one of the victims, Chris McDonnell, who was at the departure, and his wife, Lynn, who was also there at the beginning, although she didn't ride.

They carried with them, those 26 riders, the memory of Grace McDonnell. As one of them said--, Monte Frank, who organized and led the effort--Grace was on their wheels. They carried with them the memory of Grace, but they also carried the hopes and

hearts of America. Everywhere they went on that journey, people stopped them, thanked them and honored them, as I seek to do today here on the floor of the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters, both written to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member, along with Senators Murphy and myself, letters written by Lynn and Chris McDonnell and a separate letter written by the families of some of those victims.

These letters summarize the reason for their journey in very specific terms, stating:

In the midst of our anguish we have learned about the

dangerous loopholes in the Nation's gun laws, and we are

compelled to speak out to save others from suffering what we

have endured. We are writing today to express our deep

conviction and support for the President's plan to reduce gun

violence in America.

Specifically, we are asking Members of Congress to:

1. Require a criminal background check for every gun sold

in America that includes a review of all disqualifying

records and meaningful recordkeeping for all sales--in the

same manner that federally licensed dealers are currently

required;

2. Ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity

ammunition magazines; and

3. Make gun trafficking a Federal crime, with real

penalties for straw purchasers.

The epidemic of injury and death from gun violence is a

plague on America, especially since the toll it takes on our

families is preventable.

The letters go on.

As I told them when they arrived, an event which was electric, literally in the shadow of the Capitol, their journey sent a message. Very simply, all of us who believe we must stop a scourge and epidemic of gun violence, all of us must keep on pedaling. We must do as they did. Even though our road, like theirs, may be rough and uphill at times, we need to keep on pedaling and working. Never give up. We need to keep faith with those victims and their families, the 26 victims of that massacre at Sandy Hook. When they rode to Congress, their message to us is we need to keep faith with those victims and assure Newtown never happens again. If it happened in Newtown, it can happen anywhere in America. It is not just a mass shooting which is involved, it is the 2,500 people who have been victims of gun violence since December 14, all around Connecticut, all around the Nation, not only in communities such as Newtown, the quintessential New England town, but on the streets of Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, in neighborhoods, in big cities, rural areas, and suburban towns.

Team 26 is really Team Connecticut and Team America. It brings those values, courage, and strength Newtown had shown to Congress. Congress needs to heed and hear the country, just as people on their route honored Team 26. The American people believe we must do something about gun violence in America. They believe overwhelmingly, the polls show 80, 90 percent on all of these issues. They want action from this Congress.

As the President of the United States said to all of us in his State of the Union, the American people want a vote. The victims' families from Tucson, Virginia Tech, and Aurora deserve a vote. This is why Team 26 made this journey, and why they embody the conscience of America. The letters they

have written to Senators here call for action on measures which are common sense and common ground. We can reach a bipartisan compromise if we recognize the carnage, death, and destruction that is the result of gun violence in America.

These measures are law enforcement tools. Background checks enable enforcement of existing laws, the prohibition against criminals, drug addicts, domestic abusers, and the seriously mentally ill from purchasing guns, not just from federally licensed dealers. Background checks are necessary to enforce that law, just as is the prohibition on purchase of ammunition by those same categories of people. Likewise, the Federal ban on illegal trafficking and straw purchases is necessary to enforce existing prohibition. We have work to do.

I want to conclude by thanking those who are all family, who have stood strong and spoken out. Every time they do, it is with grief and pain. Anyone who spent time with them--and I have been privileged to spend hours and hours, days, over these past months with those families, as well as first responders, who still bear the scars, emotional scars, which are deeply felt.

I have great admiration for their courage and strength. I hope this body will take heart from it and will take their leadership as a message we must act, we must vote, we must do something about gun violence in America.

I am proud to welcome Team 26.

I ask unanimous consent the full list of all riders and their support group be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

I wish to briefly thank my great colleague and friend for those remarks stated so eloquently. I could not agree more. Mental health has to be part of a comprehensive strategy, as does school safety. No single measure for gun violence control can do it alone.

That is why I began by referring to the momentous debate we are having today about the future of initiatives such as mental health. And I join in challenging the NRA--for all its opposition, staunch and steadfast, against any measure trying to stem or stop gun violence in America--to join in seeking common ground on mental health initiatives and other measures that are common sense. I urge gun owners-- responsible people who enjoy recreation and hunting--as well as others who are intent on stopping violence in America to support these mental health services for diagnosis and treatment. That is why I have joined in those measures as well for the Judiciary Committee and the HELP Committee.

But I really wish to thank the Senator from Maryland for her incomparable and invaluable leadership on this issue.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my dear friend and lifelong Connecticut resident and business owner, Bob Rich, who passed away this past November.

Born in Stamford, Mr. Rich graduated from Stamford High School in 1944 and from Princeton in 1948. He returned to Connecticut to eventually take over his father's business, the F.D. Rich Company, which had been founded in 1920. For more than 60 years, he and his brother, Frank D. Rich, Jr., grew their father's construction company into one of our Nation's foremost real estate development firms. Their family history in construction and real estate development became an important part of our national history of economic growth.

Under Mr. Rich's leadership, the F.D. Rich Company built innovative buildings where there was a great need both in Stamford, CT, and across the Nation--from shopping centers and office buildings to schools, hospitals, and hotels. In 1958 the F.D. Rich Company made its mark on our Nation's Capital when it completed the aircraft hangars for Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base. To this day, F.D. Rich continues to create interesting and functional urban and suburban buildings that add to our country's landscape.

Since his death, Mr. Rich has been deservedly memorialized for playing a significant role in revitalizing the city of Stamford between 1970 and 2000. The New York Times wrote that he ``transform[ed] Stamford from a fading industrial town suffering from severe urban blight to a thriving city which has emerged as an important center for commerce, culture, education and recreation.'' Mr. Rich led the creation of countless buildings, including an addition to the Stamford Hospital in 1967, One Landmark Square in 1973, and the Rich Forum in 1992, which continues to house the city's center for the arts.

The University of Connecticut and the Rich family are also closely connected. In 1934 Mr. Rich's father oversaw the construction of the Wilbur Cross Library at UConn's Storrs campus. When UConn opened its downtown Stamford campus, the Riches helped build the Rich Concourse, which to this day serves as a central meeting place on campus.

In addition to Bob Rich's community involvement through the F.D. Rich Company and at UConn, he was involved in numerous national and local organizations including the Boys and Girls Club of Stamford, the Regional Plan Association, and Stamford's State Street Debating Society. He and his family founded the Rich Foundation, which continues to serve nonprofit organizations, primarily in Fairfield County, enriching Connecticut's arts, education, health care, and social services.

Bob was beloved by family and friends throughout his life, and he will be remembered by countless residents who live and make memories in the spaces he built. I invite my colleagues to pay tribute to a man who forever changed the Stamford skyline and improved the community.

I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, the Senate proceed to executive session and that the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on Executive Calendar No. 10 be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be agreed to, the time until 12:00 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture on the nomination, upon reconsideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 16, S. 298.

Mr. President, I further ask that the committee- reported amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 41, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 26, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Senator Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, under the previous order; further, that following

the cloture vote on the Hagel nomination, upon reconsideration, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly caucus meetings; and finally, that if cloture is invoked, the time during recess, morning business, and adjournment count postcloture on the Hagel nomination.

Mr. President, there will be a reconsideration of the cloture vote on the Hagel nomination at noon tomorrow.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I am proud to stand here to support the nomination of Chuck Hagel as our next Secretary of Defense.

I believe he will be confirmed by this Chamber, I hope, on a bipartisan basis. He is, in fact, extraordinarily qualified for this position of unique trust and responsibility. That is the criterion we must apply. Is he qualified? We may have, probably each of us does have among us 100 Senators, someone whom we would make our first choice or a better choice or is the right person, in our view. That is not the question before us. It is whether he is qualified to be part of the President's team and to be held accountable for the policies the President sets.

Chuck Hagel is a decorated war veteran with two Purple Hearts. He is a highly successful businessman and entrepreneur and a real manager at a time when we need a manager in the Department of Defense.

He is a former colleague as a Member of this body, but he is also a former deputy head of the Veterans' Administration. He has given his life to public service and, most especially, to helping men and women in uniform while they serve this country in the military, and then when they come back to civilian life, helping them contribute and continue to give back to this Nation.

He is a Republican who has won the confidence of President Obama and whom President Obama has chosen to be a member of his team.

We speak, as Members of the Senate, about giving the President a measure of deference, a prerogative in making the selection about who will serve on his team because it is the President who sets policy. The President will set our policy on the Middle East and on Israeli security. Chuck Hagel has said he is committed, unequivocally, clearly, unambiguously, to the security of Israel and to whatever weapons systems are necessary to provide Israel in maintaining and sustaining that security, the Iron Dome, David's Sling, and other measures this Nation has committed to its great ally in the Middle East. This is an ally that is necessary not only to stability there and hopefully to peace but also to our national interests. Chuck Hagel may have made comments in the past that seemed to vary somewhat from the President's policy, but it is the President who sets that policy and whom we will hold accountable for that policy.

Likewise, on Iran, Chuck Hagel has said he is in favor of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, not containing it but preventing it. Whatever his past says, it is the President who sets that policy. Chuck Hagel has indicated he is completely in accord with it, in support of it, and will implement it. Again, it is the policy of the President to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, and we must in this body give support and encouragement to the President in being strong and tough, setting even stronger and tougher sanctions, and using the military option, if necessary, to stop a nuclear-armed Iran.

Going from policy to what I think is perhaps the unique challenge of the next Secretary of Defense, which is to attract and retain the best and the brightest to our military--we talk all the time about people being our greatest asset in the military. We have weapons systems that defy the imagination, let alone comprehension.

At the end of the day, the people who run those weapons systems, the people who staff and work every day to keep America safe, are the ones who are our greatest asset. At a time when we are bringing troops back from Afghanistan when Secretary-to-be, hopefully, Hagel, has indicated we ought to do it even more quickly, our greatest challenge will be to prevent the hollowing out of our military as has occurred in the wake of past conflict.

That hollowing out is not only about hardware and weapons; it is about the people who command and the people who run those weapons. We need to ensure we keep those midlevel officers and enlisted members who are so important to the leadership of our military. Chuck Hagel's leadership and commitment will be critical to that task.

I have met with Chuck Hagel privately. I asked him tough questions about Iran and Israel. I am satisfied on those points that he will advise the President in accord with those policies.

But even more important, I am struck by his passion and the intensity of his commitment to our men and women in uniform. His caring about them is indicated in so many ways--spontaneously and strongly in his testimony as well as in his private conversation. He will make sure that sexual assault in the military--the epidemic and scourge of rape and assault against men and women who serve and sacrifice for this country--will be stopped; that there will be, in fact, zero tolerance not only in word but in deed, and his viewing, for example, of the documentary ``Invisible War''--his understanding that this kind of misconduct is an outrage, never to be even complicitly condoned and to treat as a criminal offense the most extreme kind of predatory criminal activity is important to the future of our military and our men and women in uniform.

He is committed to making sure that women in combat--a policy of the President--is implemented forcefully and faithfully. He is committed to making sure the policy of repealing don't ask, don't tell is implemented zealously and vigorously. He is committed to making sure that our veterans--not only for our returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans but also for the veterans of his own generation--our Vietnam veterans who had Post-Traumatic Stress at a time when it was undiagnosed and, in fact, unknown as a condition resulting from combat--have the benefit of policies and practices we are now implementing to deal with Post-Traumatic Stress and traumatic brain injuries.

He is also committed, equally importantly, to making sure the epidemic of suicide among our currently serving men and women in uniform and also our veterans is addressed forcefully. There are tragedies every day involving those suicides--families who lose loved ones and a country that loses a great public servant--and Chuck Hagel cares about those men and women. He will see a person in uniform not as simply an officer or an enlisted man but as someone who will soon be a veteran and become part of a continuum.

Chuck Hagel has served the VA as well as now in the Defense Department, and he will make sure the transition from active service to reservist service is seamless; that veterans are provided with the transition assistance they need for employment, education, and health care, and that our National Guard receives the respect and service it deserves.

I am convinced Senator Hagel's No. 1 priority will be taking care of our troops. He was a veteran's advocate with the USO, and he has won the respect and admiration of veterans groups. In addition, he has won the support of an extraordinary array of former Secretaries of Defense, ambassadors and diplomats, senior retired military leaders, and, in particular, two former Members of this body who appeared with him at his testimony, former Senators Warner and Nunn.

I believe Chuck Hagel is the right man for the fiscal challenges that will confront the Department of Defense. Putting aside sequester--which I dearly hope will not happen; Secretary Panetta has said it would be irresponsible for the Congress to allow it to happen, and many of us agree it must be avoided--and the challenges in the next month or series of months, the long-term outlook for the Department of Defense is that it must do more with less, and Secretary Hagel, if he is confirmed, will have that management task. He is one of the people in this country who is almost uniquely qualified to carry it out, and I believe he will, with great distinction. He will take care of our men and women in uniform and strengthen our national defense. He will do what he thinks is right, even if it is not popular.

Finally, Chuck Hagel is, as everyone has said, a good and decent man. And I thank in particular Senator McCain for his very compelling and telling comments during our consideration before the vote in the Armed Services Committee. He said, and I agree, that no one should impugn Chuck Hagel's character. He is a person of integrity and character, and I believe he will have the respect at all levels of our defense--the men and women who serve and sacrifice every day, the men and women who are essential to our national security--and I recommend him and urge my colleagues to support him.

I respectfully hope he will be confirmed quickly and that it will be done on a bipartisan basis so we will be united--as our Armed Services Committee in this body is almost always united--in favor of the President's choice for this uniquely important responsibility.

I yield the floor.