Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the Senator from Wyoming and considerable affection. Indeed, he is my ranking member on the HELP Committee, and he has been kind enough to offer his perspective on this question of the rules change. I will reciprocate by offering my perspective.

We were in the caucus the other day. Our leader reported that during the time Lyndon Johnson was the majority leader, which was a very active and disputatious time in the Senate, he faced one filibuster, and Leader Reid reported that he had faced 391, I think was the number he used. So clearly the use of the filibuster as measured by the number of cloture motions is completely out of control.

The Senator from Wyoming correctly points out that filling the tree is a challenge to the minority, but I believe, if I recall correctly--I was planning to speak on something else, and I don't have the numbers exactly accurate at hand--I believe the number of times the tree has been filled is something like 70. So there is a huge disparity between the number of times the majority leader has filled the tree and the number of times he has been forced to file cloture.

The reason is that very often there is not agreement on amendments. While on a major bill, an open amendment process is good, I believe, and we have seen examples of that recently on this floor--Senator McCain and his work on the Armed Services bill, along with

Senator Levin, is an example--there are also times when filibuster by amendment takes place and it becomes abusive.

I can remember sitting in the chair where the distinguished Senator from Ohio is now sitting and watching Senator Kennedy on the floor. He had a bill that would raise the minimum wage. We often get big, fat bills on the floor. This was a bill that I think was literally one page. It was the smallest, shortest bill because it was just changing a number, basically.

Hundreds of amendments--literally hundreds of amendments had been filed against it. When the majority leader is faced with that--many of them were completely nongermane and not relevant--when the majority leader is faced with a circumstance where hundreds of amendments are filed on a small bill like that, it is easy to see why you have to move forward by trying to limit the time because the whole rest of the session could have been devoted to that bill if you can't get control. If you can't get an agreement--and very often, agreement is withheld as to a fixed number of amendments--then you have no choice but to take your best shot with the bill by filling the tree.

Even if I am right that the number is 70, I contend that the number of what the minority might consider a malicious filling of the tree might be a number considerably smaller than 70. Many of them might be made necessary by the actions of the minority by offering hundreds of amendments and by refusing to enter into agreements to offer a reasonable number.

I think it is a problem, but I think on balance I stand by the view I have expressed before that there is an unprecedented level of obstruction in this body, and I say that with some humility because the distinguished Senator from Wyoming has been here a bit longer. I have been here only for 6 years. But that is what people who have been here for many, many years confirm--that there has been really nothing like it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business for debate only be extended until 5 p.m., with Senators to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask to speak for 15 minutes but probably not that long.

Mr. President, I will speak off the topic of the day. Obviously, we are focused on the fiscal cliff. The measure is now over in the House, and the distinguished Senator from Wyoming and the senior Senator from California expressed their hope--and I would say confidence--that the House will act. Given the dysfunction of the House and its Republican leadership, I am perhaps a little bit more cautious than they are about this.

I remember that we did a very good bipartisan highway bill here. It passed with an enormous vote of 70-some, if I remember correctly, and went over to the House. They could not even pass a highway bill. They had no bill at all. They got so snarled up that finally they passed a bill that did nothing but to appoint conferees to argue about our bill. They could not bring a bill of their own into conference.

We worked very hard on a farm bill here. It was a bipartisan farm bill. Senator Stabenow was particularly energetic in that, as was her colleague from Kansas. Again, that was a bipartisan bill, which required a lot of hard work and had many compromises. We are in a terrible drought--which is something I will talk about more in a moment--and they cannot pass the farm bill over there.

The Speaker tried to respond to having withdrawn from his negotiations with the President on the fiscal cliff by coming up with a new so-called Plan B alternative. He could not even get that through his caucus. There is an unprecedented degree of extremism and dysfunction in the House Republican caucus, and I hope that does not disrupt the progress we have made on the fiscal cliff. We will have to wait and see. Today will tell.

What I am here to talk about is not the topic of the day because the fiscal cliff is the topic of the day. What I am here to address is never the topic of the day. It is the unmentionable issue; that is, climate change. It is so apparent now that changes in our climate and in our environment are occurring from pole to pole and from the height of our atmosphere to the depths of our oceans. The overwhelming majority of scientific research, indeed statistically the now virtually unanimous scientific view, indicates that all these observed changes in the Earth's atmosphere are the direct result of human activity--specifically the emission of carbon dioxide from our burning of fossil fuels.

If we continue with these destructive levels of carbon pollution, carbon change will not just alter our environment, it will alter our economy. Very often discussions in Washington steer away from things that have to do with environment and the health and enjoyment of human beings of the natural world and instead it comes down to money, as it so often does in this town.

Let's talk about climate change in the context of money. Markets and businesses across this country have developed to fit the prevailing environmental conditions in their different regions of the United States. These markets and these businesses are going to face real challenges when our climate changes those prevailing conditions. Whether it is higher sea levels, stronger storms, warmer winters or dryer summers, no State and no economy will be unaffected by climate change.

We are already seeing real-life examples of economic consequences of a rapidly changing environment. The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that 80 percent of American agricultural land is experiencing drought, making this the most expensive drought since the 1950s--more than half a century ago. Last month, Deutsche Bank Securities estimated that the drought will reduce 2012 economic growth in the United States by one-half to 1 percent.

Shipping on the Mississippi River has been reduced and may stop in areas where drought has left water levels too low for safe passage. The American Waterways Operators and the Waterways Council estimate that $7 billion worth of commodities are supposed to ship on the Mississippi in December and January alone. An interruption of that would have a considerable economic effect. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has begun a $10 million project to clear rocks from the waterway to prevent that shutdown. The other option is to release water from the Missouri River, but that would just draw down water supplies in upriver States that are already suffering from drought themselves, such as Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota.

Water is also essential for power generation. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, powerplants account for nearly half the daily water withdrawn in the United States. Drought and heat go hand in hand to push powerplants toward shutdown. A 2008 drought put several powerplants in the Southeast within days or weeks of shutting down. Texas, California, and the Midwest now face a similar challenge with drought stressing their power production.

In the Northeast, it is not low water but warm water that caused the shutdown of Unit 2 at the Millstone powerplant in Connecticut. The temperature of the water in Long Island Sound, from which the plant draws its cooling supply, climbed to over 75 degrees Fahrenheit this summer--too warm for cooling the Newark reactor. Of course, the cost to our economy of disruptions in our power supply is particularly high during warm weather, when energy use is at its height to run air- conditioners.

Scientists tell us the droughts and heat waves will get worse and water temperature will continue to increase. Agriculture, shipping, and power industries will be operated under new baseline environmental conditions.

Warmer oceans, ocean acidification, and extreme weather events create an

obvious threat for our fishery industries and the marine trades they support. It is not just the fishermen who are affected but the people who repair their engines and nets, sell them equipment and gear, as well as the companies that buy and process their catch are affected.

In my home State of Rhode Island, average coastal water temperature has risen by 4 degrees over the past two decades, affecting our historic fish stocks and hurting local fishermen. It is not just in Rhode Island where the seas are changing. To use another example, rising ocean temperatures and acidity threaten corals, which, as well as being a cornerstone of ocean biodiversity--but never mind, this is supposed to be a speech about the money--the coral reefs are a mainstay of Florida's water and boating industry. People go there to snorkel, scuba dive, and see the corals. If the corals are not there, it is going to affect those industries.

The increasing acidification of ocean water driven by the rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lowers the ocean's saturation levels of calcium carbonate. That sounds boring. Who the heck cares about the ocean saturation levels of calcium carbonate? Calcium carbonate is the fundamental building block of the shells of aquatic species such as oysters, crabs, and lobsters. Fisheries we actually do care a lot about, even if we may not care about calcium carbonate. It is the basic building block of the plankton that comprise the very base of the food web. Ocean acidification caused 70- to 80-percent losses of oyster larvae at an ocean hatchery in Oregon from 2006 to 2008. Wild oyster stocks in Washington State also failed under the stress of that more acidic water. This is an industry worth about $73 million annually along our Pacific coast, and it is faced with the threats from climate change.

The pteropod, which is also known as the sea butterfly, will be harmed by ocean acidification. The pteropod is a humble beast. It is a tiny aquatic snail. Nobody goes fishing for pteropods, so who the heck cares? Salmon care. Indeed, 47 percent of the diet of some Pacific salmon species is pteropods. The salmon fisheries which support coastal jobs and economies care an awful lot about the salmon.

Extreme weather events such as storm surges have become more frequent as our climate and oceans warm. Extreme storms such as that are particularly hard on shell fisheries. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that ``because oysters require two or more years to grow to marketable size, full recovery from . . . hurricanes may take years, and some oyster habitats may be lost permanently.'' National Geographic noted that after Hurricane Katrina, 90 percent of Mississippi's oyster beds and 74 percent of Louisiana's oyster beds were destroyed. Just this fall, Hurricane Sandy disrupted shellfisheries all along the east coast.

Coastal economies, such as in my home State of Rhode Island, are threatened in other ways by sea-level rise and extreme storms. The Rhode Island economic development Council notes that tourism in Rhode Island is at the absolute center of our summer economy. People from all across the Nation come to Rhode Island in the summer to enjoy our beautiful beaches, our sparkling bay, sail, and participate in all the beachside activities. Damage to that economy would be very significant.

We are rebuilding from Hurricane Sandy so we will be ready when our beach visitors come this summer, but it is a reminder of how important that economy is to Rhode Island, and it is a reminder of how vulnerable it is to extreme weather.

Let's turn to the West, where by August of this year more than 6 million acres had burned in wildfires. A new analysis by NASA predicts that by the middle of the century we can expect to match the severity of 2012 fires every 3 to 5 years. It is going to become commonplace.

A recent study by the University of Oregon--and I see the Senator from Oregon on the floor--found that large wildfires caused long-term instability in local labor markets. Increased local spending fighting the fires is not enough to outweigh the economic loss caused by the disruption of businesses and damage to property from the fire.

In August, Reuters reported that wildfires were hurting tourism in Western States. One small business owner in Salmon, ID, claimed she had nothing but cancellations as a result of the fires.

The New York Times has reported that the declining snowfall and unseasonably warm weather had been a drag on winter sports and recreational tourism last winter. The reported forecast is that before the end of the century, the number of economically viable ski locations in New Hampshire and Maine will be cut in half. Skiing in New York will be cut by three-quarters, and there will be no ski area in Connecticut or Massachusetts. That will have an economic effect.

Looking back West again, the Park City Foundation in Utah predicted an annual local temperature increase of 6.8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2075, which would cause a total loss of snowpack in the Park City resort area. The Park City Foundation report estimates this will result in thousands of lost jobs, tens of millions in lost earnings, and hundreds of millions in lost economic output to Utah. Ominously, in Colorado the ski season was pushed back at least a week this winter for lack of snow.

I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle, whether from coastal, agricultural or mountain States, feel the concern for their State's economy as I do for Rhode Island. To protect these economies, we will all have to act prudently, and that means waking up and addressing climate change head on in Congress. The majority of Americans of all political affiliations accepts the science behind climate change. Yet Congress refuses to act.

There is a consensus among scientists where around 98 percent--the other day I came with a circle graph which showed a tiny little wedge of fringe dispute on this question is barely visible in the sea of agreement. Yet Congress refuses to act. Even after hearing from our national security officials about the dangers and threats from climate change, Congress refuses to act.

That refusal to act will have an impact on the American economy. A Brookings report has found that well-designed climate legislation would increase investment, increase employment, and significantly increase America's gross domestic product, but here in Congress we are more likely to hear that any climate change legislation would hurt the economy and kill jobs. The opposite is true. We are missing opportunities to grow a clean economy that is manufacturing and export intensive and that creates the kinds of jobs that support a strong American middle class. We are failing to protect against carbon pollution that will harm our States' economies all across the country, and we are failing to take prudent steps to protect ourselves against the coming changes from our carbon pollutants that have now become unavoidable. With the carbons up in the air, the changes are going to happen. We can't stop those. We need to prepare for them, and we are failing to take those prudent steps. Those of us on the east coast who weathered Sandy have gotten a preview of coming attractions as the oceans continue to warm and extreme storms become more common.

As I said before, here in Congress we are sleepwalking through history. We are lulled by the narcotic of corporate money from the polluters and from their allies, we are ignoring the scientific facts, and we are refusing to awaken to the many ringing alarms that nature is now sounding. I hope we can soon find a way to correct this grievous folly and omission.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 7 p.m., with all other provisions remaining in effect.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my sincere congratulations to Olivia Culpo, a native of Cranston, RI, on being crowned Miss Universe. After being crowned Miss Rhode Island USA in her first ever pageant competition last year, Olivia's rise to Miss Universe has been nothing short of meteoric. In quick succession she became the first Rhode Islander to ever win the Miss USA competition, and is now the first Miss USA to win the Miss Universe pageant in over a decade. She has made the people of our State very proud.

The Miss Universe title is an acknowledgement of Olivia's exceptional intelligence, talent, and compassion. She was recognized by the National Honor Society for her academic excellence at Rhode Island's St. Mary's Academy Bay View. She currently attends Boston University in neighboring Massachusetts, where she has made the dean's list every semester.

In addition to excelling in her studies, Olivia is a talented and dedicated musician. From a young age, her love for music was cultivated by her proud parents, Peter and Susan Culpo, themselves musicians. She took cello lessons from second grade on, and has since performed with the Rhode Island Philharmonic Youth Orchestra, Rhode Island Philharmonic Chamber Ensemble, Bay View Orchestra, and Rhode Island All State Orchestra. This self-described cellist nerd has also had the honor of performing at Boston Symphony Hall and at Carnegie Hall in New York City, and she completed a tour of England in 2010.

Olivia has already demonstrated a strong drive to make a difference in her community and her country. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to meet with Olivia here in my Washington office, where she advocated passionately for Federal support of ovarian cancer research. I share her deep concern about the terrible effects of cancer. She is a valuable ally in the search for a cure.

Olivia has given the Ocean State something to be proud of. I am grateful to Olivia Culpo for the example she sets for our children and for being a stellar and faithful representative of the State of Rhode Island on the world stage. I wish her all the best.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Madam President, in every corner of the globe--from pole to pole, and from the top of our atmosphere to the depths of our oceans--we see evidence of the fundamental changes that are taking place across our Earth.

In 2012, North America experienced a number of unusually severe events and passed several ominous milestones. These episodes have driven a shift in attitude--a realization, really, among Americans. As we head home for the holidays this year, each of us is likely to find back in our home States that more and more people are convinced that climate change is happening, and that it is deadly serious.

Here are just some of the extraordinary events that occurred as we look back on this year, 2012.

January 2012 was the fourth warmest January experienced in the contiguous United States since we began keeping records. And we began keeping records in 1895. By the end of January, snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains was 50 percent less than normal.

February 2012 marked the end of the fourth warmest winter on record-- an above-average start to the year but not extremely so.

Then this happened: March 2012. March 2012 was the warmest March on record. Every State in the Nation experienced a record daily high temperature in March. There were 21 instances of nighttime temperatures--nighttime temperatures--being as warm or warmer than the existing daytime record temperature.

It was also in March that a University of Texas poll asked respondents if they thought climate change was occurring. Madam President, 83 percent of Democrats said yes; 60 percent of Independents said yes; 45 percent of Republicans said yes.

As 2012 went on, things did not slow down much for the lower 48 States.

April 2012 would become the third warmest April on record. I came to the floor in April to speak about another milestone surpassed that month. For the first time--for the first time--one of NOAA's remote monitoring sites--this one in the Arctic--recorded a concentration of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, crushing records that go back 8,000 centuries. For 8,000 centuries mankind has inhabited a planet with an atmosphere with carbon concentration being 170 and 300 parts per million. We have broken out of that. For the

first time, in April, we hit 400 parts per million.

By May, it was no surprise that spring 2012 was a full 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the next warmest spring in recorded history. May was the second warmest ever.

June was only the eighth warmest June, but it officially marked the end of the warmest 12-month period the United States of America has ever experienced.

Across the lower 48, July was not only the warmest July on record, it was the all-time warmest month in America in recorded history. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, 62.9 percent of the contiguous U.S. was experiencing moderate to exceptional drought by the end of the month--nearly two-thirds. Madam President, 62.9 percent was experiencing moderate to exceptional drought as a result of this being the all-time warmest month.

As the mercury climbed in July, so did agreement among Americans on the crisis of climate change. That University of Texas poll was taken again, and the percentage of Democrats convinced of global climate change had risen to 87 percent in July, up from 83 percent in March. Among Independents, the percentage went from 60 percent up to 72 percent. And Republican believers in climate change became a majority. They went from 45 percent to 53 percent.

By August we had experienced the third hottest summer in the history of the continental United States. In the West, 3.6 million acres were ablaze with wildfires--nearly twice the August average, and the most in the 12-year period of record.

August also brought bad news from the North. The University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center and NASA announced that Arctic sea ice had reached a record low area of 1.58 million square miles--nearly 70,000 square miles smaller than the previous modern record low. Over the past three decades, average annual temperatures had increased twice as much over the Arctic as over the rest of the world. The average extent of the Arctic sea ice has declined by 25 to 30 percent in that time, and the rate of decline is accelerating.

September 2012. September 2012 was the 16th month in a row that the contiguous United States recorded an above 20th century average temperature.

October finally ended that record streak with a temperature across the lower 48 that was 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit below the long-term average. But October also brought us, as the Acting President pro tempore so well knows, Hurricane Sandy, Superstorm Sandy. It was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, claiming more than 100 lives, and the second costliest. The cleanup in my home State of Rhode Island and across the east coast--I know most agonizingly in New York and New Jersey--is still underway. This week in the Senate we are working to approve a $60 billion aid package which will help restore that damage.

Hazard Mitigation

Let me step aside of my climate remarks and speak for 1 minute to that because as we consider this supplemental appropriations bill, long-term mitigation must be part of this discussion. We should not replace and rebuild what was damaged just as it was. We need to replace and rebuild smarter. Sandy is a preview of what is to come. Infrastructure that failed or flooded should be replaced to higher standards; at-risk roads, wastewater treatment plants, and other utilities need to be relocated to safer places.

If disaster strikes, as it has, and we do not plan ahead, as we are being urged not to, we will squander Federal dollars. A 2005 study by the National Institute of Building Sciences showed FEMA hazard mitigation efforts yielded an average cost-benefit ratio of 4 to 1--$4 saved for every $1 spent. Let's not be foolish.

A prime example of this sort of smart planning was in the Acting President pro tempore's home State at Point Lookout, Lido Beach, and Atlantic Beach. These communities invested in sand dune buffers--sand dune habitat buffers. When Sandy came, they suffered relatively little damage compared to nearby Long Beach, which had decided against maintaining a sand dune buffer and ended up with an estimated $200 million in property and infrastructure damage.

Coastal wetlands act like sponges during flooding events. They absorb water. They dissipate wave energy. They protect against storm surge. They are an important part of our coastal defenses in coastal States. Natural dune systems on barrier islands and beaches do the same. They are part of our natural defense against coastal storms. These natural defenses must be protected and strengthened for our future safety. And I hope that even Senators who come from landlocked States can appreciate what this means in coastal States.

So back to Sandy. While it is impossible to say specifically that climate change caused Superstorm Sandy, we know that warmer oceans, warmer, moister air, and higher sea level all add to the power and danger of these extreme storms. We know that climate change ``loads the dice'' for such storms.

Madam President, 2012 marched us past even more portentous milestones. NOAA reported that November 2012 was the 333rd month in a row--the 333rd month in a row--that the global monthly temperature was above the 20th century average. The Earth has not seen a single month below 20th century average temperatures since February of 1985. Some of these interns and pages here were born after that. They have lived their entire lives in that environment.

According to the National Climate Data Center, 2012 is set to be the warmest calendar year on record for the contiguous United States. December would have to be one full degree Fahrenheit colder than the coldest December on record to prevent that from happening and make up for the exceptionally hot first 8 months of the year.

The overwhelming majority of scientific research indicates that these observed changes in the Earth's atmosphere are the direct result of human activity; namely, the emission of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Just last week, Dr. James Powell, former Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointee to the National Science Board, released a new review of the scientific literature, in which he searched for articles that expressly reject human-caused global warming or propose an alternate explanation. He looked at 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles--nearly 14,000 peer- reviewed climate articles. Madam President, 24--24--either rejected global warming trends or denied the human contribution to warming.

I am not even sure if viewers looking at this on C-SPAN can see it, but on this circle pie graph I have in the Chamber, this little red line depicts the 24 articles out of the 14,000. It is a tiny fringe.

The science is clear, and more and more Americans accept that the science is clear behind climate change. An AP poll out just last week found that 78 percent of Americans accept the reality of climate change.

The findings, like the University of Texas poll, break it down by political party: 83 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Independents, and 70 percent of Republicans. So the real debate in this country is not whether humans are altering our climate but how severely we will do so and how as a society we will respond to this challenge.

Although some Members of this Chamber continue to deny the existence of climate change, Americans are aware that our Nation is vulnerable to extreme weather events. They are aware that climate change loads the dice. They are aware that carbon pollution continues unabated, and they are aware that Congress has failed to act.

The public is ready for us to take action, but we are not. We are, as I have said in a previous speech, sleepwalking. As Congress sleepwalks, Americans actually are taking action on their own. In coordination with the nonprofit organization 350.org, for example, students at more than 150 colleges and universities across the country are pressing those institutions to sell off the portions of their endowment portfolios that are invested in fossil fuel companies. These students are imploring their schools to weigh the real cost of climate change against the drive for greater financial returns and divest from the polluters.

This type of divestment campaign was employed effectively in the 1980s to pull investment from South Africa during apartheid. With American college

and university endowments estimated to total more than $400 billion, this movement by students deserves significant attention.

In the Senate key legislation such as the Water Resources Development Act must reflect the reality that our climate and environment are changing, that we need to prepare for these changes. We should take direct legislative action to mitigate climate change. We should defend the administration's carbon pollution standards which will require new and existing powerplants to clean up their smokestacks.

The United States must support the Department of Defense, the world's single largest consumer of oil, as a leader in energy efficiency and alternative fuel development for our national security sake. We must extend the production tax credit as our colleague, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, has so often and so eloquently pressed us to do. The American Wind Energy Association is pushing for a 6-year extension of the production tax credit to grow a vibrant wind power industry in America.

A greener economy provides a cleaner and safer future for Americans. More Americans already work in the green industries than in the fossil fuels industry. A Brookings Institution report found the clean economy employs 2.7 million workers. That is manufacturing and exports, the kind of jobs that support a strong middle class. But in Congress we are sleepwalking through history. We are sleepwalking through history, and we must wake up; awaken to our duties, awaken to our responsibilities, awaken to the plain facts that lay all around us if only we would open our eyes and see them.

The public has every reason to want to grab us and give us a good shake. We are sleepwalking through this era, lulled as we sleepwalk by the narcotics of corporate money, corporate money out of the polluters and their allies. We are lulled by the narcotics of manufactured doubt planted in a campaign of disinformation by those same polluters and allies. But history is calling us loudly and clearly. History is shouting in our ears. We are oblivious, sleepwalking along.

The people across the country and around the world are counting on us. They are imploring us. We have responsibilities to them. Yet in Congress, we ignore the facts. We ignore our duties. We sleepwalk on. It is irresponsible and it is wrong.

I yield the floor.

Sure.

I would be delighted to agree with the Senator from Massachusetts. On Rhode Island's behalf, our fisheries disaster, as the distinguished Senator from Maryland said, was declared by the Secretary of Commerce. This is not a maybe. This is not trying to sneak something in. This is a declaration of the U.S. Government. It was the New England multispecies groundfish fishery disaster that affected the State of Massachusetts. There was great leadership from Senator Kerry on all of this, as it affected the State of New Hampshire, and great leadership from Senator Shaheen on all of this.

Governors of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Connecticut all signed the request for that disaster declaration.

In Rhode Island's letter our congressional delegation--myself and my senior Senator, Mr. Reed, Congressman Cicilline, and Congressman Langevin--wrote:

In addition to the direct impact on groundfish catch

limits, there will likely be indirect impacts on other

fisheries that these same permit holders, and many other

Rhode Island fisherman, also rely on.

To the point Senator Begich of Alaska made, economic disaster in the fishing industry cascades through the rest of our economy.

It is not just the fishermen coming home with empty nets because the cod moved offshore, it is the fuel suppliers to their boats, the engine repair shops that take care of the mechanics, the net repair and construction groups. So a whole economy stands on this. It is really inconceivable that a Senator from a State that has, as one of a group of five, soaked up $40 billion of disaster assistance would now begrudge us $150 million after this disaster was declared.

This is bipartisan. Let me ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter Senator Shaheen mentioned earlier as an exhibit for the end of the colloquy.

It is signed by 35 Republicans and 9 Democrats. It could not be more bipartisan. We are trying to deal with a real problem here, and it is a recurring problem.

Our historic New England ground fiduciary is facing significant cuts in our catch limits because our populations are not rebounding the way that scientists anticipated they would. Something out there is causing this failure

to rebound and unprecedented environmental changes very related to the environmental changes that whip up giant storms like Sandy are at the heart of this.

One last quote, and then I will yield back to my colleagues who are engaged in this colloquy. Where we are is a big body of water called the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem which is tracked by NOAA, and it extends from the Gulf of Maine all the way down to Cape Hatteras on our Atlantic coast.

Here is what NOAA reports:

During the first six months of 2012, sea surface

temperatures in the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem

were the highest ever recorded . . . above-average

temperatures were found in all parts of the ecosystem, from

the ocean bottom to the sea surface and across the region.

There is a real physical rationale and reason for the disaster that we are seeking a remedy for in our home State industries that are being so grievously stricken.

I will close the colloquy by thanking Senator Mikulski for her leadership, support, and her key role on the Appropriations Committee. I want to thank Senator Kerry of Massachusetts for his leadership on the original disaster declarations that brought us to this point. I want to thank Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire for pulling this colloquy together. Thank you to Senator Begich for his advocacy on that other coast.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, December 11, 2012.

Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski,

Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, &

Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.

Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,

and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.

Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Hutchison: We

are writing in support of including federal fisheries

disaster funding in any emergency supplemental appropriations

bill developed in response to Superstorm Sandy. Over the past

year, extreme weather and other natural events have wreaked

havoc on commercial and recreational fishermen in our states,

leading the Secretary of Commerce to declare federal

fisheries disasters. Despite these declarations and the

ongoing hardship, Congress has not yet appropriated funds.

As you know, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to

declare federal fisheries disasters under Section 308(d) of

the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and Section 315 of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

These designations allow Congress to appropriate federal

relief funds to alleviate the harm caused by natural

disasters to fisheries and the fishing industry. The disaster

assistance funds can be used to repair or restore fishing

equipment and infrastructure, compensate for losses, restore

fisheries habitat, support workforce education, provide low-

interest loans, and conduct monitoring and cooperative

research focused on improving stock assessments.

Currently, federal fisheries disasters have been declared

in nine states in response to four different events:

Superstorm Sandy--On November 16, 2012, a federal fisheries

disaster was declared for New Jersey and New York due to the

damage caused by Superstorm Sandy. The high winds and storm

surge devastated marinas, destroyed fishing vessels, and

resulted in severe economic losses for both commercial and

recreational fishermen.

Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery--On September

13, 2012, a federal fisheries disaster was declared for Rhode

Island, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and

Connecticut. The projected reductions in the total allowable

catch for certain critical groundfish stocks will have a

significant impact on many of the same coastal communities

that were hit by Sandy. Despite strict adherence to new and

rigorous management practices by fishermen, key fish stocks

have not returned. Slow recovery and declining fish stocks

will continue to have a negative impact on commercial

fishing, harming local communities and economies.

Alaska Chinook--On September 12, 2012, a federal fisheries

disaster was declared for Alaska Chinook salmon fisheries in

the Yukon River, Kuskokwim River, and Cook Inlet. Thousands

of Alaskans have been impacted including commercial

fishermen, sport fishermen, and subsistence-based residents.

Beyond direct impacts, indirect impacts have been felt by

communities through reduced tax revenue, reduced work for

processor employees, and reduced income for fishery dependent

businesses.

Mississippi Oyster and Blue Crab--On September 12, 2012, a

federal fisheries disaster was declared for commercial oyster

and blue crab fisheries in Mississippi. Historic flooding of

the lower Mississippi River required opening of the Bonnet

Cane Spillway on May 9, 2011. This action released

substantial amounts of freshwater into the Mississippi Sound,

impacting the entire ecosystem. Mississippi's oyster and blue

crab fisheries were extensively damaged, resulting in severe

economic hardship for commercial fishermen still recovering

from the devastating impacts of Hurricane Katrina and the BP

oil spill.

Fishing is an integral part of our states' economies and

cultures. These disasters have devastated fishing families

and coastal communities and there is an urgent need to

provide federal assistance. We urge you to move swiftly to

appropriate funds for these federal fisheries disaster

declarations.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Lautenberg,

SusanM. Collins,

Robert Menendez,

Lisa Murkowski,

Jack Reed,

Roger F. Wicker,

Charles E. Schumer,

John F. Kerry,

Mark Begich,

Kirsten E. Gillibrand,

Scott Brown,

Jeane Shaheen,

Sheldon Whitehouse,

Olympia J. Snowe.

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

Mr. President, Senator Reed and I want to speak briefly, and unless the leader has arrived, we will return the Senate to a quorum call at the conclusion of the remarks by Senator Reed and myself. And it is gratifying that the Senator from Pennsylvania is presiding.

Yesterday, I requested that the cloakroom hotline Senator Casey's Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Support Reauthorization Act, S. 958, with an amendment important to Rhode Island and to the country regarding growing our mental health care pediatric workforce.

My amendment would make resources available to increase the number of residents trained in child and adolescent psychiatry. Senator Casey's-- the Presiding Officer's--bill and my amendment have the unanimous support of my caucus and I believe have very broad support in the Republican caucus as well. Unfortunately, there has been an objection to my unanimous consent request, so I am very disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not able to clear this particular bill. I am also disappointed that none of the Republicans who object to this measure have approached me or my staff with their concerns--none of them. If it is just one, then he or she has not. If it is more than one, none of them have.

I was prepared to come to the floor today and make a live unanimous consent request to find out exactly where the objections to this amendment lie. But, instead, I will urge my Republican colleagues to work with me and with Senator Casey of Pennsylvania to reach consensus on this important measure.

The CHGME program should be reauthorized. Since its enactment in 1999, the program has helped address the need for more pediatric specialists. But there is a gap in the field of child and adolescent psychiatry.

The American Psychiatric Association concluded this year that ``targeted efforts must be made to encourage medical training and residency in the subspecialties of child and adolescent psychiatry. . . . ''

I gather my time is very brief, so I am going to yield to Senator Reed very shortly, but I do want to thank Senator Casey and Senator Isakson for their patience and their hard work.

The amendment I have proposed and Senator Reed of Rhode Island has proposed is an amendment that does not add any additional spending. It stays within the existing budgetary limit. It confines the amount available for child and adolescent psychiatry to less than 1 percent of the total. I believe it is a very sensible measure, particularly in the wake of the tragedy in Newtown, CT. The idea that there is not room for further attention to child mental health and psychiatry and adolescent mental health and psychiatry seems to me to be an unfortunate outcome.

Bradley Hospital in Rhode Island would be a beneficiary of this. They are a particularly good hospital in a great number of settings.

As I said, I know time is short, so I will yield the remaining moments of our time to Senator Reed.

Mr. President, let me yield back to my senior Senator to move to his other issue. But let me also say what a pleasure and a privilege it has been to work with him in our shared determination to see that this amendment is made--this very reasonable amendment that will add no additional spending and will expand the reach of adolescent and child psychiatry in this country. He has been terrific to work with. It is always a pleasure and privilege to have Senator Reed as my senior Senator, but this has been a particularly good occasion of working together.

With that, I yield back to my senior Senator.

Mr. President, today the State of Hawai`i, the Senate, and the United States mourn the loss of Senator Daniel Inouye.

Observers of the Senate today know Chairman Inouye as a poised, soft- spoken statesman: courteous and collegiate; shunning of the spotlight; above the petty churn of the partisan fray. But historians will remember him as a great patriot, a fierce warrior, a brave pioneer, and a great leader.

Chairman Inouye's unflinching commitment to his country withstood both the moral threat of having his family deemed ``enemy aliens'' and the direct physical threat of Nazi firepower. His famed ``Go For Broke'' 442nd Regimental Combat Team was made up of Japanese-American volunteers, but even among this exceptionally decorated group of men, Second Lieutenant Inouye exemplified exceptional bravery and sacrifice in what Winston Churchill described as the war ``to confront not only military but moral aggression.''

The fight to see the American values of freedom, justice, and equality fulfilled would continue beyond the war years and throughout Chairman Inouye's lifetime of service to his home state and his country. The new State of Hawai`i sent him to Washington as part of its very first delegation. The first Japanese American elected to Congress, he has been a champion of civil rights for women, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and African Americans. Indeed, Chairman Inouye was the last surviving member of the Senate to have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also ferreted out corruption at the highest level of government, serving on the Senate's select committee on the Watergate scandal, and chairing the investigation of the Iran-Contra arms affair.

But Dan Inouye was first and foremost a servant of the people of Hawai`i. Ever grateful for the faith they entrusted in him year after year, he worked to make sure they had every opportunity to achieve the full potential of the American Dream. I was honored that he joined me as an original member of the Senate Oceans Caucus,

and as a cosponsor of my bill to establish a National Endowment for the Oceans to protect the environment and economies that are so vital to both his home State and my own.

As his colleague and compatriot Senator Daniel Akaka said on the Senate floor in those first hours after we received the terrible news of Chairman Inouye's passing, ``He fulfilled his dream of creating a better Hawai`i.'' His wife Irene, his son Ken, his daughter-in-law Jessica, his stepdaughter Jennifer, and his granddaughter Maggie can all be proud of that legacy. My thoughts are with them in this, their time of loss.

As the old hymn tells us:

Now the laborer's task is o'er;

Now the battle day is past;

Now upon the farther shore

Lands the voyager at last.

Aloha, Dan Inouye.

Madam President, I rise today in support of S. 1792, the Strengthening Investigations of Sex Offenders and Missing Children Act of 2011. This legislation, which is cosponsored by Senators Sessions, Feinstein, Schumer, Klobuchar, and Blumenthal, as well as Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary Committee, would clarify the authority of the U.S. Marshals to help track down sex offenders and missing children. It is a simple and common sense of piece of legislation. I urge my fellow Senators to support it, with the hope that our colleagues in the House will soon send it to the President's desk to be signed into law.

As my colleagues know, time is of the essence when children go missing. Of those children who are abducted and subsequently murdered, 74% are killed within 3 hours of being abducted. The U.S. Marshals Service has extensive experience with and sophisticated tools for quickly identifying and tracking down fugitives and missing individuals. Notably, the U.S. Marshals Service has substantial resources for finding the fugitive sex offenders who too often are involved in child abductions.

As a result, state and local law enforcement and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children often call on the marshals to assist in the event that a child goes missing. This bill would make it clear that, upon request, the U.S. Marshals are allowed to assist in investigating these cases, even if an arrest warrant has not yet issued. The bill also clarifies the Marshals Service's authority to assist other law enforcement agencies, upon request, in investigating sex offender cases.

I thank Senator Sessions for working with me on this important legislation, and my fellow Judiciary Committee members Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Klobuchar, and Blumenthal for supporting the bill. I also would like to thank Chairman Leahy for cosponsoring the bill and for his leadership, both generally with respect to all his work to keep our children safe from predators and specifically for moving this piece of legislation through Committee.

I am confident that every member of the Senate will understand the clear and simple principle behind this legislation and the important threat to our children that it addresses. The bill was reported by a voice vote of the Judiciary Committee, I am aware of no concerns or opposition, and I would urge my colleagues to ensure its prompt passage by the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of S. 1793, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, which I introduced.

This commonsense bill clarifies that--upon the request of appropriate State and local law enforcement officials--select Federal law enforcement agencies may use their unique capabilities to help investigate and respond to mass killings and other violent crimes.

The measure will provide important clarity to Federal law enforcement officers who are called on by State and local counterparts to assist in response to a mass shooting or other violent crime at a college campus, shopping mall, office building, or other public place. Currently, the FBI and select other Federal agencies often provide requested assistance to State and local law enforcement in these types of cases. The absence of an explicit authorizing statute, however, has created concern that agents responding to these violent crimes could be held liable even though their only goal was to protect the public.

This bill makes sure that the FBI, other law enforcement components at the Justice Department, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Secret Service can provide State and local law enforcement officers with assistance when so requested. In so doing, it will help State and law enforcement protect victims and solve these terrible crimes.

The bill does not expand the jurisdiction of Federal law enforcement agencies. Assistance from a Federal agency must be requested by the State or local authority and agreed to by Federal authorities. And the bill does not impose new criminal penalties or regulations.

The House passed a companion measure, H.R. 207, last year by a vote of 358 to 9. The Senate bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last November, and I thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership in moving this legislation through Committee. Since then, I have worked with Chairman Leahy, Senator Grassley, Chairman Smith of the House Judiciary Committee, and Representative Gowdy to improve the bill, and we have reached an agreement that is reflected in a substitute amendment.

I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this measure, so we can ensure that our dedicated law enforcement officials can respond to and solve these tragic crimes.

I yield the floor.

I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont.

Before the junior Senator from North Dakota speaks-- and I appreciate his courtesy in allowing us to make a few brief, personal remarks before he speaks--I wanted to say to my friend and my chairman, the senior Senator from North Dakota, that, yes, in the most obvious respect, he is leaving the Senate, and we will be a smaller Senate for his departure. But in some very important ways, Kent Conrad is not leaving the Senate. I can assure him that for as long as I remain a U.S. Senator and have the privilege to serve in this body, Kent Conrad will remain in this Senate as an example that I will never forget as a young Senator tutored by him in the Budget Committee. I can speak for myself when I say that, and I will only speak for myself when I say that, but I am absolutely confident there are dozens of other Members of this body who can say exactly the same thing. In that sense, Kent Conrad will continue to be an important part of this Senate, and the effect he will have in those years through the example he has set, echoed down the hallways of time by people who had the opportunity to serve with him, is going to be an immensely valuable one.

He displays the characteristics of diligence--an underrated attribute but an important one--of courtesy, of determination. It is an interesting combination, courtesy and determination, but Chairman Conrad knows very well when to yield and when to fight. There was a politician hundreds of years ago in another country who said, ``One ought not to be obstinate,'' and then he continued, ``unless one ought to be, and then one ought to be unshakable.'' On the things that count, Senator Conrad has always been unshakable. Where progress can be made, he has never been obstinate. It has been my honor to serve with him.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.