Floor Statements

Madam President, Senate Standing rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the

procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 28, 2013, a majority of the members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Management adopted subcommittee rules of procedure.

Consistent with Standing rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the rules of procedure of the Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight.

Madam President, Senate Standing rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 27, 2013, a majority of the members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce adopted subcommittee rules of procedure.

Consistent with Standing rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the rules of procedure of the Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce.

Madam President, Senate Standing rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 27, 2013, a majority of the members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia adopted subcommittee rules of procedure.

Consistent with Standing rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the rules of procedure of the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia.

Madam President, Senate Standing rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 27, 2013, a majority of the members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations adopted subcommittee rules of procedure.

Consistent with Standing rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the rules of procedure of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Mr. President, it is rare that I disagree with the Senator from Texas--maybe once or twice in the last half a dozen years. Seriously, we disagree from time to time, but we do it in a way that we are not disagreeable with one another.

I support the President's nomination of Chuck Hagel to be our Secretary of Defense, and I wish to take a couple of minutes to explain why.

For folks who might be watching this from afar, this body used to operate very differently than it does today. The President would nominate people to serve in a cabinet or to serve as judges and there would be hearings. There would be debate. Sometimes people would disagree. But, certainly, for Cabinet appointments and for sub-Cabinet level appointments, for the most part, the President got the team he, or someday she, asked for. That is the way we have done it as Governors across the country, and it is the way we still do it. The idea of 4 years of this administration to still be playing a game of executive branch Swiss cheese--we have so many relatively high level positions, confirmable positions that are still vacant--is not good, whether it happens to be a Democratic administration or a Republican administration.

The President, regardless of what party they are from, needs, for the most part, to have the team they want to put in place. They have been elected to lead. Let's give them a chance to lead. If they screw up, we can hold them accountable.

I had the pleasure of serving with Chuck Hagel for, I guess, my first 8 years as a Senator. I like him and respect him as a fellow Vietnam veteran. He is a war hero. He was wounded not once but twice. He has the Purple Hearts and some other decorations to show, to demonstrate his valor.

He came back, put his life together, built a business, a good-sized business, ran that business, and he has led some large government entities, including those that look out for our veterans and others too.

As to the question of does one have the kind of intimate knowledge of the Department of Defense we would like for a person to have, he has had good training. He has had good exposure. He has been there. He has done that. He has been able to, as an innovator, as an entrepreneur, start a business, grow a business, run that business, build that business.

Here he served on the committees of jurisdiction that actually enabled him to drill down on parts of the Department of Defense and part of our defense policy and foreign policy that you never have a chance to when you are over there serving in Southeast Asia or some other area around the world as a member of our Armed Services.

When I went with Chuck on a codel--I want to say it was maybe in 2005--that is when we actually get to know people around here. We could be here, be kind of airdropped in on Monday afternoons, vote, and then by the time Thursday night rolls around, folks here smell the jet fumes and they are ready to go back to Hawaii or Michigan or Oklahoma or someplace such as that. We go by train to Delaware. But people are ready to head for home, and we just do not have the kind of time together, quality time together, that we used to have when people would actually stay here for weekends, when we were not focused 24/7 on fundraising, and we actually had--believe it or not--dinner clubs and people carpooled to work. Can you imagine that: Democrats and Republicans carpooling to work here? We just do not have those opportunities these days. I do not know that we ever will again.

So one of the great opportunities we have to know people is when we go on codels, these congressional delegation trips. I had the opportunity to go with Chuck Hagel on a codel he led over one-half dozen years ago. We went to the Middle East. We went to Israel. We spent time along Gaza. We went to Jordan. We met with leaders of Saudi Arabia. I had a chance to actually see him interact up close and personal with leaders of all those countries, see how he handled himself, to see his knowledge of the issues, his ability to debate, discuss those issues with the leaders of three of the most important nations, allies of ours in the world.

I was proud of the job he did then. I was proud of the leadership he showed on those occasions. I was proud of his grasp of the issues.

Do you know the other thing I was proud of? He was willing to be honest and frank with people with whom we need to be honest and frank. He reminds me of one of the old caveats of leadership, which is that leadership is having the courage to stay out of step when everybody else is marching to the wrong tune. Leadership is also the willingness to speak truth to power, to tell people--sometimes our leaders, whether they be the President or, frankly, sometimes leaders of other countries--what they need to hear, maybe not what they want to hear.

Chuck Hagel is that kind of person. I believe he is principled. I think he is hard working, that he will surround himself with good people, ethical people, honest people, capable people, bright people.

I think as a former Member here, he understands the importance of the interaction between us and the Department of Defense, which I hope he will have the opportunity to lead.

When we passed something called the Chief Financial Officer Act, I think in 1990 in this Chamber, coauthored, I think, by Bill Roth, my predecessor, one of the requirements of that legislation was not only would every major department in our government be required to have a chief financial officer, but also, in addition, there was a full expectation that all these departments which were not auditable--could not be audited--had to become auditable. They had to be capable of being audited. Then there was the full expectation that once they were auditable, they would be able to pass an audit fully without qualification.

Today, there are two departments in the Federal Government that are not auditable and have not passed an audit in an unqualified manner. One of them is the Department of Homeland Security. They are getting real close. They are knocking on the door. I think they will get it done by next year. I congratulate the Secretary and their team for doing that.

The other is the Department of Defense. For years and years and years they would say: Well, manana. We will do that manana, next year or the year after that. They have not. Why is this important? What you cannot measure you cannot manage. What we cannot measure we cannot manage. The Department of Defense is unable to measure well and, as a result, they do not manage as well as they need to.

We just got a high risk update from the GAO, the General Accountability Office, 2 weeks ago. High on their list of issues that need to be addressed is the Department of Defense's need to be able to pass an unqualified audit so their financials, their accounting systems and supply systems, their spare parts systems, personnel systems actually work.

Leon Panetta has done much in the 2 years he has served as Secretary of Defense to make sure the Department of Defense takes this obligation seriously. I commend him and I thank him for that. He has been like a breath of fresh air.

Second, Chuck Hagel has given me his personal commitment that he will not relent, he will not turn back, but

he will continue on this path of undertaking and be in a position by the next 3 years to do what the Department of Homeland Security is about to complete, the benchmark they are about to reach, the milestone they are about to reach, and the milestone that virtually every other Department of the Federal Government has reached.

We are looking down the barrel of a gun this Friday--sequestration. If we are serious about making sure we do not get shot by that gun, mortally wounded by that gun, along with our economy, we are going to have to make sure we are doing three things better.

One of those is, we need some additional revenues. We need to have revenues closer to the level of where revenues were in the 4 years we had balanced budgets under Bill Clinton, where revenues as a percentage of GDP, my colleagues will recall, ranged anywhere from 19\1/2\ percent of GDP to 20\1/2\ percent of GDP--somewhere in that range. Last year, it was about 15\1/2\, maybe 16 percent of GDP.

With the fiscal cliff deal adopted in this body and signed by the President back in early January, revenues as a percentage of GDP by the end of these 10 years will be up to about 18, 18\1/2\ percent. But some additional revenues are needed, very much in line with what we had when we actually had four balanced budgets in a row under the Clinton administration. Remember, those were the first balanced budgets we had since 1969. So, No. 1, we need some additional revenues--in smart ways.

The second thing we need to do is entitlement program reform. Over half the money we spend is on entitlements. Is it possible? The President says we need entitlement reform that saves money, does not savage old people, poor people, and actually makes sure these programs are around for future generations. I could not agree more. That is No. 2.

The third thing we need to do is find ways to save money in everything we do--everything we do--from agriculture to transportation and everything in between, including defense.

I am told--and I am going to look over here at Senator Levin, the chairman of the committee, and the ranking member, Senator Inhofe, and just ask a rhetorical question. I recall hearing not long ago that we spend more as a nation on defense--I say this as a 23-year veteran naval flight officer, Active and Reserve Duty, a Vietnam veteran--but I am told we spend as much money on defense as maybe the next 5, 6, 7 nations combined.

As important as it is for our next Secretary of Defense to have a good grasp of military issues--foreign issues, intelligence issues, the ability to manage big operations, to have strong managers under him or her--as important as that is, it is important for us to spend more wisely.

A good place to start is the GAO high risk list for high-risk places where we are wasting money and that we get a good to-do list out of GAO. It is one I think we ought to take seriously. I know the chairman of our committee and the ranking member take it seriously. Believe me, I do too.

One of things we are going to use from our commitment of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs--on which Senator Levin serves, and he chairs the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--we are going to make sure we hold the feet of the Department of Defense to the fire, and we need a Secretary of Defense who will do that as well--someone who is a fiscal hawk, someone who understands the importance of getting better results for less money in everything we do, including providing for the defense of our country.

That is not the speech I brought with me to the floor, but it is the speech that is in my heart.

I just say to my colleagues, if you are on the fence and you are not sure whether you ought to vote for cloture, someday we are going to have a Republican President again. Someday we will have a Republican majority here. There is an old saying: Every dog has its day. Today we have a Democratic President and we have a Democratic Senate for confirmations. Someday that will not be the case. I will say to our Republican friends, just be careful. Just be careful. I say this with respect: Be careful of the bed we make because someday our friends on the other side will get to lie in it. Do we want to continue to go on with this precedent of maybe even denying an up-or-down vote on the nomination of a Secretary? I do not think so. I do not think that is a good precedent. An even worse precedent is to have all these sub- Cabinet-level positions that are vacant and have been vacant, in some cases, for weeks, months, in some cases for longer. That is a terrible precedent to have, and we need to stop it. A good time to stop it is right now.

I am pleased to stand and endorse the nomination of Chuck Hagel. I think he was a credit to his State, to this body when he served here, and I think he will be a credit to us if he is confirmed. I urge his confirmation starting with today's vote for cloture.

Thank you very much.

Madam President, rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the Committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. Today, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs adopted Committee Rules of Procedure.

Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs printed in the Record.

Madam President, while the Senator from Texas is still on the floor, he knows I have a lot of respect and affection for him, and I am delighted to serve with him here and also to serve with him on the Finance Committee. I appreciate Senator Shaheen for letting me jump in for just a minute.

We agree on so much. We actually do. And not just the Senator and I but our colleagues here. And I think we fully recognize that although the deficit comes down from $1.5 trillion to about $850 billion or so, it is way too much. I think we also agree that one of the best ways to reduce the deficit is to strengthen and grow the economy.

I believe--and I think I heard the President say this the other night--there are three things we need to make sure we address.

One, we need to address--and the President said this--we need to address entitlement programs, not to savage old people or to savage poor people but to figure out how to get better health care results for less money to be able to preserve those programs for the long haul.

I think we will have an interesting proposal from Senator Durbin later this year with respect to Social Security and putting it in a structured way, maybe a path forward on Social Security that makes it clear we are not trying to balance the budget on Social Security but actually do reforms that we

know are needed and I know are needed so we will have that program for the long haul.

I commend my side of the aisle, and I commend your side of the aisle. We acknowledge that we need some revenues, whether it is on the tax expenditure side, the deductions and loopholes and so forth, or finding other ways to raise revenue.

Third, we just came from a press conference this morning with Congressman Issa, Congressman Cummings, Senator Coburn, and myself to focus on the GAO and their high-risk list, high-risk ways for wasting money. That comes out today. Every 2 years they give us this high-risk list for how to find ways to save money and spend our tax dollars more efficiently.

We have all that working together, those three things: entitlement reform, some additional revenues, and actually looking in every nook and cranny to see how we can get a better result for less money. Those we can do together. My colleague and I have worked on some things together, and I want to work on those with the Senator, and I look forward to that. I think that if we do, a lot of our colleagues will join us.

Again, I thank Senator Shaheen and Senator Hoeven for allowing us to have this colloquy.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the New Columbia Admissions Act, a bill that seeks to end a longstanding injustice and give full voting representation to the residents of the District of Columbia. More than 600,000 Americans live in Washington, D.C. and bear all the responsibilities of citizenship, yet currently have no vote in either chamber of Congress. This legislation paves the way for the creation of a 51st state from the populated portions of Washington, D.C., giving the citizens who live here in our nation's capital the voice they deserve in our national government.

Washington is not just a collection of government offices, monuments and museums; it is home to more than half a million people who work, study, raise families, and start businesses. These citizens serve in the military and die for our country just like the residents of the 50 States. They pay Federal taxes just like other Americans in fact they pay more per capita than residents of most states. But when it comes to having a voice in our Congress, suddenly these citizens do not count.

We must ask ourselves how we would feel in their place; I think most of us would quickly decide that this is not how we would want to be treated. In fact, the United States is the only democracy in the world that treats the citizens of its capital city this way. We are the only democracy, it is sad to say, that denies voting representation to the people who live in its capital city.

People have been trying to fix this injustice for almost as long as it has existed. In 1801, just one year after residents of the new Federal capital city were denied the vote, a prominent city resident began arguing for a constitutional amendment to give voting rights to residents of the District. Two years later, a House member introduced a bill to ``retrocede,'' or give back to Maryland and Virginia, the land that was ceded to create the District. Support for the proposal was based in large part on the political injustice of denying representation to the residents of the capital city. Even some opponents reportedly argued that the District might be granted Congressional representation once its population became more substantial, a threshold that clearly seems to have been met by a city of more than half a million people, a number comparable to several states. In 1978, the House and Senate approved a constitutional amendment to give the District full voting representation in Congress that was ratified by 16 states, but the measure died when it failed to win support from the required \3/4\ of the States within 7 years. More recently, in 2009, the Senate approved a bill to give the District a voting representative in the House.

The bill I am introducing today creates a path for the District of Columbia to become the State of ``New Columbia'' with full voting rights in Congress. Under this bill, a federal district called Washington, D.C. would still remain under the control of Congress, as the Constitution mandates. But it would be a smaller area encompassing the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court and the National Mall, an area where few people actually live. The rest of the current District of Columbia, diverse neighborhoods that are home to more than half a million U.S. citizens no different from the ones you and I and our colleagues come here to represent would become a new State provided that its residents vote to set that in motion.

The bill is similar to proposals offered by Senator Edward Kennedy in the early 1990s, and by my former colleague Senator Joseph Lieberman in December 2012. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's sole, non-voting representative in the House who has worked tirelessly for voting rights for the residents of the city, has introduced a companion House bill.

I believe we keep proposing and debating different solutions to the injustice imposed on District residents because we know in our hearts that the situation we have now and have tolerated for so long is not right. It is familiar, but it is not fair and not consistent with the values we all share as Americans. It is incumbent upon those of us who enjoy the right and the privilege of full voting rights to take up the cause of our fellow citizens here in the District of Columbia and find a solution.

Earlier this week, we celebrated the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his legacy of working to bring equality and justice to all Americans. It is in that spirit that I introduce this bill, with my colleagues Senators Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin and Patty Murray. I hope we can work together to find a way to bring the same rights to the residents of the District of Columbia that all of us living in the 50 states cherish so much.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the New Columbia Admissions Act, a bill that seeks to end a longstanding injustice and give full voting representation to the residents of the District of Columbia. More than 600,000 Americans live in Washington, D.C. and bear all the responsibilities of citizenship, yet currently have no vote in either chamber of Congress. This legislation paves the way for the creation of a 51st state from the populated portions of Washington, D.C., giving the citizens who live here in our nation's capital the voice they deserve in our national government.

Washington is not just a collection of government offices, monuments and museums; it is home to more than half a million people who work, study, raise families, and start businesses. These citizens serve in the military and die for our country just like the residents of the 50 States. They pay Federal taxes just like other Americans in fact they pay more per capita than residents of most states. But when it comes to having a voice in our Congress, suddenly these citizens do not count.

We must ask ourselves how we would feel in their place; I think most of us would quickly decide that this is not how we would want to be treated. In fact, the United States is the only democracy in the world that treats the citizens of its capital city this way. We are the only democracy, it is sad to say, that denies voting representation to the people who live in its capital city.

People have been trying to fix this injustice for almost as long as it has existed. In 1801, just one year after residents of the new Federal capital city were denied the vote, a prominent city resident began arguing for a constitutional amendment to give voting rights to residents of the District. Two years later, a House member introduced a bill to ``retrocede,'' or give back to Maryland and Virginia, the land that was ceded to create the District. Support for the proposal was based in large part on the political injustice of denying representation to the residents of the capital city. Even some opponents reportedly argued that the District might be granted Congressional representation once its population became more substantial, a threshold that clearly seems to have been met by a city of more than half a million people, a number comparable to several states. In 1978, the House and Senate approved a constitutional amendment to give the District full voting representation in Congress that was ratified by 16 states, but the measure died when it failed to win support from the required \3/4\ of the States within 7 years. More recently, in 2009, the Senate approved a bill to give the District a voting representative in the House.

The bill I am introducing today creates a path for the District of Columbia to become the State of ``New Columbia'' with full voting rights in Congress. Under this bill, a federal district called Washington, D.C. would still remain under the control of Congress, as the Constitution mandates. But it would be a smaller area encompassing the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court and the National Mall, an area where few people actually live. The rest of the current District of Columbia, diverse neighborhoods that are home to more than half a million U.S. citizens no different from the ones you and I and our colleagues come here to represent would become a new State provided that its residents vote to set that in motion.

The bill is similar to proposals offered by Senator Edward Kennedy in the early 1990s, and by my former colleague Senator Joseph Lieberman in December 2012. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's sole, non-voting representative in the House who has worked tirelessly for voting rights for the residents of the city, has introduced a companion House bill.

I believe we keep proposing and debating different solutions to the injustice imposed on District residents because we know in our hearts that the situation we have now and have tolerated for so long is not right. It is familiar, but it is not fair and not consistent with the values we all share as Americans. It is incumbent upon those of us who enjoy the right and the privilege of full voting rights to take up the cause of our fellow citizens here in the District of Columbia and find a solution.

Earlier this week, we celebrated the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his legacy of working to bring equality and justice to all Americans. It is in that spirit that I introduce this bill, with my colleagues Senators Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin and Patty Murray. I hope we can work together to find a way to bring the same rights to the residents of the District of Columbia that all of us living in the 50 states cherish so much.

Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with Senator Reed, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, regarding funding for the Department of the Interior included in the disaster assistance supplemental.

Mr. President, my home State of Delaware was unfortunately impacted by Hurricane Sandy, which struck on October 28 and 29 of this year. The damage caused by Hurricane Sandy was widespread in Delaware. Among the areas impacted was Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Sussex County.

Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge, established in the 1960s, is an important part of the Eastern migratory flyway and one of the only places in the world where horseshoe crabs come to spawn. It offers world class outdoor recreation and is a key piece of Delaware's tourism industry.

The refuge suffered severe damage during Hurricane Sandy. Breaches in the beach and dune system separating the refuge's marsh units from the Delaware Bay resulted in an ongoing inundation of the refuge by salt water. This has led to the loss of thousands of acres of critical habitat, as well as damage to refuge property and facilities. It severely impacted the health of the freshwater marsh system in the refuge, and the decline of the marsh has in turn led to continuous flooding of nearby farmland and communities, damaging the private property of thousands of people.

I am grateful that the Appropriations Committee had the wisdom to include $150,000,000 for the Office of the Secretary of at the Department of the Interior to fund recovery and restoration activities related to Hurricane Sandy and other natural disasters. I would like to ask if the intent of this funding is to support recovery and restoration projects similar to those that will be required in my State to respond to the impacts of Hurricane Sandy?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, this week, the Senate passed the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012, The IPERA Improvement Act or H.R. 4053. Earlier this month, the House passed the same legislation, which builds on the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA) by taking additional steps to identify and prevent improper payments by Federal agencies. I look forward to seeing the President sign into law this important, bipartisan legislation.

The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 goes beyond IPERA's goals for curbing agencies' improper payments with three main concepts, including provisions that: expand requirements and strengthen estimates for agencies' improper payments; mandate the establishment of a government-wide ``Do Not Pay'' program; and prevent payments to deceased individuals. As my colleagues know, improper payments are payments made in error, such as payments made to the wrong person or in the wrong amount. These kinds of preventable mistake unfortunately result in billions of lost taxpayer dollars every year.

Although we have made great strides in curbing improper payments in the past year, we still have a ways to go to improve transparency and make agencies and agency leadership more accountable for better protecting the taxpayer dollars we entrust to them. At a time of record deficits, we need to be getting the most out of every dollar and cannot afford to waste more than a hundred billion annually. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress and the Administration to see that these measures are enacted, and properly and efficiently implemented.

The bipartisan legislation requires several important steps to curb Federal Government waste and fraud.

First, the bill requires agencies to strengthen the estimation of improper payments. The legislation requires improved and more consistent reporting of improper payment estimates by Federal agencies, based on recommendations from the Department of Defense inspector general and the Government Accountability Office. The legislation, for example, would prevent agencies from relying only on voluntary disclosure of improper payments by contractors, as well as require agencies to produce documentation to prove a payment was correct.

Second, the bill mandates the establishment of a government wide ``Do Not Pay'' program. Too often, Federal agencies make improper payments to individuals that could easily be identified as ineligible if payments were more routinely screened against Federal databases. Unfortunately, Federal agencies are not doing this basic eligibility screening before payments are made. Through the initiative, before an agency could award a contract or grant, the agency would have to cross check against the ``Do Not Pay'' database, which will include a central comprehensive database of individuals, contractors, and others who may be ineligible to receive Federal funds, such as companies that are no longer allowed to do work with the Federal Government because of a fraud conviction or similar reason.

The administration is currently establishing a ``Do Not Pay `` program based on the White House executive memorandum, Memorandum on Enhancing Payment Accuracy Through a ``Do Not Pay List.'' However, there was no statutory mandate to proceed. The legislation establishes the ``Do Not Pay'' program in law throughout the Federal Government under a specific timetable.

Third, the legislation targets death fraud and improper payments to deceased individuals. Improper payments include those made to individuals who are deceased, and should therefore no longer be eligible under program rules, yet still receive payments. For example, the Office of Personnel Management Inspector General reported that $601 million in improper payments were made to Federal retirees found to have already died. However, such payments to dead people were not unique to this one program. Improving the collection and use by Federal agencies of data on deceased beneficiaries will help curb hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, in improper payments. The IPERA Improvement Act requires that the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with other agencies and stakeholders, determine a plan for curbing improper payments to deceased individuals.

Finally, the legislation requires that the Office of Management and Budget report to Congress on the current efforts by agencies to recover improper payments, including a listing of agencies that employ outside contractors for recovery efforts, and their current levels and targets for recoveries. This reporting can easily be done as part of the annual report on improper payments currently conducted by the OMB.

I believe passage of the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 represents an important step toward curbing waste and fraud within the Federal Government. I look forward to working with the administration and Federal agencies to implement the legislation's provisions. I also look forward to working with my congressional colleagues on additional steps during the next legislative session.

Would my colleague yield?

Madam President, I want to follow up--we are supposed to talk about tomorrow being Delaware Day, if I could do that. But I wish to follow up on Senator Coons' remarks on the fiscal cliff.

A friend of mine who has done a lot of research on the fiscal cliff says that if you look at domestic and discretionary spending, that is not really the overwhelming problem as far as why we continue to have a big budget deficit. The problem is really twofold. One of those is that if you look at revenues as a percentage of GDP, historically when we have been in budget, the revenues as a percentage of GDP, at least in the last 10, 15 years, revenues have been about 21 percent of GDP. Today they are about 15, 16 percent of GDP.

But the other big driver in our deficit situation going forward is health care costs. It is health care costs, including Medicare and Medicaid. While we have to be smart enough to try to figure it out while being humane about caring for older people and the poor who count on Medicaid and Medicare to some extent, we have to focus on how to get better health care results for less money. That is what we have to focus on--how to get better health care results for less money. There are a lot of good ideas for doing that. Some of them are actually part of the health care law for our country.

So it is revenues, and the other key here is better health care results for less money. We need to make sure that we have focused on Medicare and Medicaid in a humane way and that we do so in a way that doesn't harm, doesn't hurt, is not mean-spirited to those who depend on those programs.

At the same time, we need to preserve those programs for the coming generations. For the pages down here--how old are you guys? Fifteen, sixteen years of age? Several of you are nodding your heads. We want to make sure these programs are still around when you are 65, 66, 67 or older. That is what this is for. It is sort of a P.S. to the wonderful comments of my colleague from Delaware.

What is tomorrow in Delaware, I ask the Senator?

I seem to forget. What is this all about?

And we have fun doing them. One of the things we are going to do--a great idea from a brandnew Senator to Delaware about a year ago--is to have a ``Taste of Delaware.'' In fact, we are doing that this afternoon. It is not something paid for by the Federal Government but sponsored by our Delaware State Chamber of Commerce, as I recall, and others of its members to sort of be able to show off some of the finest of our State, and some of them pretty tasty, as it turns out. So we are looking forward to a lot of people coming by and enjoying that.

We have this beautiful center of Georgetown, with all these beautiful old brick buildings, courthouses and other buildings, and as we gather there in the circle of Georgetown--and the Senator may have said this and I just missed it--but the town crier comes out on the balcony of the courthouse and he has on his top hat and his tails and he announces the results of the election 2 days earlier. This is Thursday after the election. He calls out the results of the election 2 days earlier just for Sussex County, DE, where about a sixth of our State's population lives. He calls out the results of everything from President, Vice President, all the way down to justice of the peace or sheriff. And when he finishes, we have a couple of short speeches on the platform there in front of thousands of people, maybe a patriotic song or two, and then the leaders of parties, Democrat, Republican, maybe Libertarian chairman, take a hatchet--a pretty big hatchet--and they grab it, each holding on, and they put it down in a glass aquarium half full of sand. And then someone brings in some buckets of sand, maybe from Rehoboth Beach or Dewey Beach, and they cover up and literally bury the hatchet.

Some of my colleagues from New Jersey said: If we had a ceremony like that in our State, and we buried the hatchet, it probably wouldn't be in the sand. It would be in the anatomy or some part of the body of our opponents. But we do it in the sand. And then we have maybe a benediction, and we go off and eat, and people open their homes for a reception. So as the day carries on and the Sun sets in the west, the travails and the passions of the election begin to dissipate and people start to think and refocus not on how do we beat our opponents' brains out but how do we work together to govern our State.

It is a wonderful tradition. We have talked about this before. I think we could use a return day for our country. It certainly works in our State. It has a very civilizing effect on all our campaigns.

I would add to that this is a commitment to civility that Senator Coons and I share, and it is also one that our Congressman John Carney certainly does, and winning in races before him, Mike Castle. If you think of all of those--Castle with a ``C'', Carney with a ``C'', Coons with a ``C'', and Carper with a ``C''--people say what is it with the letter ``C'' and the State of Delaware? If I can, before I close here, I want to roll back in time about the economy of our State. People say what do you all do there? How do you provide for your living, your income? I would say the economy of our State is pretty much founded on the letter ``C.'' It includes corn. We started off by growing corn. Then chickens. There are a whole of lot of chickens there. For every person in Delaware, there are 300 chickens. For anyone listening and wondering what to have for dinner, chicken would be good. We have chemicals--the DuPont Company. A poor impoverished French family came to Delaware over 200 years ago and established what I call the DuPont country club. They didn't have many members. They figured they needed to establish some jobs so people could join their country club, so they started a chemical company, and a power company, and now they have quite a successful science company in our State--for over 200 years. We have cars. We have built a lot of cars over the years for GM and Chrysler. We are home to corporations of over half the New York Stock Exchange, half the Fortune 500. Credit card businesses are in our State. The coast of our State is the site of the Nation's summer capital--Rehoboth Beach and a bunch of other places. So the letter ``C'' has been pretty big.

People say: Well, why do they call you the First State? Well, we are actually the first colony that threw off the yoke of British tyranny on June 15, 1776 and at the same time said to Pennsylvania, take a hike, we want to be a State on our own. And then 225 years from tomorrow, to be exact, we were the first State to ratify the Constitution.

We have the best beaches in the country. Last year I think there were four five-star beaches in America, with

two of them in Delaware--Rehoboth and Dewey Beach. We have the best Air Force base, we think, in the world. We were first in Ph.Ds per capita. We have, I think, the finest Judiciary--acknowledged year after year after year as the finest judicial system in the States. We have the best financial controls and cash management system. We have had triple A credit rating since--what was that guy's name as Governor, Carper or something? We continue to have that kind of credit rating. So we are proud of being first.

What is our State motto? ``It is good to be first.'' And we attempt to be first in a whole lot of ways. Some things you don't want to be first in, and we want to be last in those. But we are proud of what we are first in--first in civility.

As Senator Coons said, this all goes back to Return Day. When you announce your candidacy for election, whether it is for the U.S. Senate or as sheriff, you know at the end of the campaign--2 days after the campaign--you are going to be in Georgetown, DE, in a horse-drawn carriage or maybe an antique car with the man or woman you were running against, their family, your family, and surrounded by friends and supporters and thousands of other people. And I think it has a very tempering effect on the nature of our campaigns, a wonderful effect.

That is one of much that we are proud of in our State. We are lucky to be Senators from this State, but this is a State that works and focuses on results. This is a State where we govern from the middle, whether the Governor is DuPont or Castle or Carper or Markell. And whether the Senator is Carper or Coons or Biden or Kaufman, we govern from the middle. We are a State where Democrats and Republicans actually like each other. We just want to get things done and do what is right for our State.

With that in mind, we hope some of our friends and neighbors can join us later today in the Russell Building up on the third floor. We will make a toast to Delaware and enjoy some sarsaparilla and some other goodies as well.

It is a great joy to serve with my friend.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. President, this is the first opportunity we will have had since returning from the election to cast a vote on a meaningful piece of legislation. As legislation goes, it is about as meaningful as any we are going to come across for a while.

If we were in the minority and the Republicans were coming to the floor and asking us to support moving to a bill so we could debate it, offer amendments to the bill, I would hope we would do that. For our Republican friends who are fearful they are not going to have a chance to offer these amendments, Senator Lieberman, the chairman, the ranking Republican Susan Collins and myself, all cosponsors of the bill, say we will work very hard to make sure any amendments that are relevant and germane to the bill can be offered, can be debated.

We worked a similar process with the postal bill. We ended up having 50 or 60 amendments. They were not all relevant or germane. At the end, we had a lot of amendments and the chance for everyone to be heard. Some of those amendments were not relevant or germane. As long as amendments are relevant and germane to this underlying legislation on cyber security, we will work very hard to make sure they have their opportunity to be heard and to vote on their proposals.

Would the majority leader yield for a question?

I am pleased to hear the leader say he would be most willing to allow the minority to offer five relevant, germane amendments to the cyber security legislation. Literally within the last 30 minutes we have had on the floor both the leader saying this, and I have heard him saying it before, that a limited number of relevant amendments--Senator McCain came to the floor, who, as you know, has not been anxious to support the bipartisan legislation developed by Senators Lieberman and Collins and others--but we have had one of the antagonists to that legislation and the majority leader both saying that five relevant and germane amendments would be allowed for the minority to offer, so we could at least take up the bill, debate the bill. At the end of the day, we still need 60 votes to get the bill off the floor.

I have heard so many of my colleagues say it is not a matter of if but it is when, and I don't want us to leave and go home for Thanksgiving with this hanging, if we could actually do something relevant.

Mr. President, along with my colleague Senator Coons, I wish to recognize a valued leader and respected public servant as he embarks upon his retirement following a long and distinguished career: the Honorable Robert P. Gilligan, speaker of the House of Representatives of Delaware.

As the longest serving house member in Delaware's history, Bob Gilligan has devoted his career to bettering the State of Delaware. A native of Wilmington, Bob went to Pennsylvania to earn his bachelor's degree from St. Joseph's University and a master's degree from Villanova University. But, fortunately for the people of Delaware and specifically those in Sherwood Park in northern Delaware, Bob soon returned to the First State to begin a remarkable career in public service.

Bob was first elected to the Delaware House of Representatives in 1972, and he has served there with distinction for the past 40 years. As representative of the 19th District, he has served as house majority leader from 1983-1984, house minority whip from 1985-1995, and house minority leader from 1995-2008. In 2008, Bob was elected by his peers to be the 145th general assembly speaker of the house.

During my time as Governor of Delaware, I had the great fortune of working with Bob on a host of important issues, including education reform, welfare reform, and fiscal policy that led to Delaware's credit rating being raised to AAA for the first time in State history--a rating that the State still enjoys today. I have had the privilege of watching Bob grow as a leader in the State house and, ultimately, as speaker over the course of his 40-year tenure. During that time, what I came to admire most about Bob was his ability to bring people together to work collaboratively. His peers on both sides of the aisle have noted Bob's ability to form partnerships and ensure the house proceeds in a civil and orderly manner. This is a truly laudable feat made even more impressive by the fact that over the past 40 years, Bob has worked with 8 different Governors, 67 different State senators, 176 different State representatives, worked on 12 different committees, and had the opportunity to vote on over 15,000 House Bills.

Bob leaves behind a legacy of creating a more open, responsible, and accountable government. When he first took office as speaker in 2008, Bob's goal was clear: He wanted to change business as usual in Dover. Almost immediately, sessions began on time, committee meetings were scheduled at least 48 hours in advance, and agendas were made public at least 24 hours prior to meeting. But the reforms didn't stop there. Under Bob's new leadership, the first bill of the new general assembly was his bill, House Bill 1, which made the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, applicable to the general assembly, effectively opening the legislature to FOIA requests. And, fittingly, as Bob closed the chapter on his career in the house, he introduced one of his final bills, House Bill 300, which requires stricter disclosure laws with regard to campaign finance, helping to ensure that elections in Delaware races are conducted in a fair and transparent manner.

Upon his retirement, Bob described the essence of his leadership and reiterated his faith in Delaware's approach to good governance: ``I hope this place never becomes like Washington D.C. It's our state. You've got to do what's right for the state. Good government and making good decisions is good politics, and if you don't get elected because of a tough decision, you still sleep well. All the decisions I've made, I never lost any sleep.''

A man of extraordinary service, Bob is known as a hard-working and active legislator. In addition to his responsibilities as speaker of the house, he served on the House Administration, Ethics, House Rules, and Veteran Affairs Committees. Prior to his role as speaker, Bob served as a member of the Joint Finance Committee and was chairman of the Bond Bill Committee, the Health and Human Development Committee, and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Bob's leadership and commitment to serving others extends well beyond the State house. He is a life member of the Mill Creek Fire Company; a board member of the Blood Bank of Delmarva; a cofounder of the Mid-County and Absalom Jones Senior Centers; and, a parishioner of St. John the Beloved in Wilmington, DE. In addition to his title of ``speaker,'' Bob is also known by the title of ``professor'' to many students through his role as an educator at Delaware Technical and Community College in Stanton.

Given Bob's incredible career of public service--both as an elected official and as a private citizen--I was of two minds when I heard of his plans to retire. On the one hand, Delaware will sorely miss its devoted public servant and leader. On the other hand, however, he will take some very well-deserved time to enjoy life with his wife Jeanne, their two daughters, son-in-law, and three grandchildren, Cole, Delaney, and Asher. We are in Jeanne's debt for sharing her husband of many years with the people of the First State.

I am truly honored to have worked with Bob Gilligan for many years and call him my friend. It is truly a privilege to pay tribute to a man who has done so much for the great State of Delaware for all of these years.