Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to discuss an amendment I have filed to the bills dealing with sequestration. I am pleased that Senator King has joined me as a cosponsor. Our amendment is the fiscal year 2013 Department of Defense appropriations bill that was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee by a bipartisan vote of 30 to 0 on August 2, 2012. There is no doubt we must find a way to avoid the meat-ax approach to budgeting that will occur under sequestration. At the same time, we must recognize that a continuing resolution also presents real challenges for those trying to carry out the necessary functions of the Federal Government, including providing for the national defense. Continuing resolutions have become far too routine. This familiarity, however, should not blind us from the harm these stop-gap measures cause to the effective and efficient functioning of government. A yearlong continuing resolution would be just as devastating as sequestration. I am not alone in that judgment. After a New York Times editorial that claimed the Pentagon can easily absorb the cuts of sequestration, Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter wrote the following in a letter published on February 27, 2013: Good management is undermined by sequestration and by something that your editorial does not mention but that is as much of a problem--the fact that we have no new appropriations bills and are living under last year's law. These two factors together lead to dangerous absurdities like having to curtail soldiers' training, ships' sailing, and airplanes' flying. Our military will therefore not be fully ready to meet contingencies other than Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the service chiefs have also repeatedly warned that the effects of sequestration or a yearlong continuing resolution will be devastating to our national security and defense industrial base. On January 14, 2013, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the heads of each military service signed a letter warning that ``the readiness of our Armed Forces is at a tipping point'' and the unfolding budget conditions, including the continuing resolution, are causing this readiness crisis. Regardless of what happens with sequestration, a continuing resolution presents two major problems. First, the readiness of our military will be put at risk unless the Department of Defense is able to transfer funds from investment accounts into readiness accounts. Under the continuing resolution, the Department cannot do this. That is why the letter signed by seven four- star generals said the current budget uncertainty will ``inevitably lead to a hollow force.'' Second, a yearlong continuing resolution prevents the Pentagon from performing three responsibilities crucial for national security: increasing production rates for existing weapons, starting new programs not previously funded the year before, and signing multiyear procurement contracts that provide significant savings while reducing the unit cost for taxpayers. There are several examples of these multiyear procurement contracts that cannot move forward without an appropriations bill. For example, Congress authorized the Navy to procure 10 destroyers during the next 5 years in the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. The Navy has the bids for these ships in hand and the Navy is ready to sign, but the Navy cannot sign these contracts without an appropriations bill. We risk throwing away savings on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars if we do not enact the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill. The ramifications of inaction on a full-year appropriations bill are not limited to the 6 months remaining in this fiscal year. Failing to enact a full-year appropriations bill that allows new starts and cost- saving multiyear procurement contracts will jeopardize the long-term stability in the shipbuilding industrial base that the Congress and the Navy have worked long and hard to preserve. When I questioned Deputy Secretary Carter on February 14, 2013, at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing about what the continuing resolution means for shipbuilding, he testified that ``we're in the absurd position where we're five months into the fiscal year and we have the authority to build the ships that we built last year and no authority to build the ships that we plan to build this year. That's crazy. . . And that has nothing to do with sequester, by the way, that's the C.R.'' The existing continuing resolution expires on March 27. That deadline is just 4 weeks away, but each week that passes puts our military increasingly at risk and makes it less prepared. I know the chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its ranking member, Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby, share my concern that continuing resolutions are not the way to govern. I am also encouraged about reports that the House of Representatives may consider a bill next week which includes a full-year defense and a full-year veterans affairs and military construction budget. At least as far back as 1974, Congress has never failed to pass a Department of Defense appropriations bill. Now is not the time, with troops in the field and the looming threat of sequestration, to establish a dangerous precedent of denying our military services the support they need to accomplish the mission we have asked them to perform. This year's continuing resolution hurts our military readiness now and, even more, in the future. It is time to show the American people that we can act responsibly before the very last minute. The men and women who serve our country are performing every task we have asked of them. It is long overdue for the Congress to do the same, so I urge the Senate to act to replace the current CR with a full-year Department of Defense appropriations bill as our amendment would provide.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Women's History Museum Commission Act of 2013, a bill that would create a commission to evaluate and plan the establishment of a museum dedicated to women's history in our Nation's capital city. I appreciate the co- sponsorship of Senators Milkulski, Murkowski, Klobuchar, Ayotte, Stabenow, Shaheen, Murray, Landrieu, Boxer, and Feinstein. American women have made invaluable contributions to our country in such diverse fields as government, business, medicine, law, literature, sports, entertainment, the arts, and the military. The need for a museum recognizing the contributions of American women is long overdue. In 1999, a Presidential commission on commemorating women in American history concluded that: ``Efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's Capital.'' Although Congress has made commendable provisions for the National Museum for African American History and Culture, the National Law Enforcement Museum, and the National Museum of the American Indian, there is still no institution in the capital region dedicated to women's role in our country's history. This National Women's History Museum Commission Act would be a good step toward rectifying this oversight. The legislation is very straightforward and would simply establish a commission, similar to what was done for the African American History and Culture Museum, to develop a feasible plan for the establishment of such a museum in here in Washington, D.C. However, unlike previous museum commissions, taxpayers will not shoulder the funding of this project. The proposed legislation calls for the commission to fund its own costs. A museum dedicated to women's history would help ensure that future generations understand what we owe to the many generations of American women who have helped build, sustain, and advance our society. These key moments in history deserve a museum, which would present the stories of pioneering women like abolitionist Harriet Tubman, founder of the Girl Scouts Juliette Gordon Low, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, astronaut Sally Ride, and Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith. Of special pride to the State of Maine is a legendary predecessor in the Senate seat I now hold: Margaret Chase Smith who was the first woman nominated for President of the United States by a major political party, and the first woman elected to both houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1940, won election to the Senate in 1948, and enjoyed bipartisan respect over her long career for her independence, integrity, wisdom, and courage. She remains my role model and, through the example of her public service, an exemplar of the virtues that would be honored in the National Women's History Museum. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Women's History Museum Commission Act of 2013, a bill that would create a commission to evaluate and plan the establishment of a museum dedicated to women's history in our Nation's capital city. I appreciate the co- sponsorship of Senators Milkulski, Murkowski, Klobuchar, Ayotte, Stabenow, Shaheen, Murray, Landrieu, Boxer, and Feinstein. American women have made invaluable contributions to our country in such diverse fields as government, business, medicine, law, literature, sports, entertainment, the arts, and the military. The need for a museum recognizing the contributions of American women is long overdue. In 1999, a Presidential commission on commemorating women in American history concluded that: ``Efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's Capital.'' Although Congress has made commendable provisions for the National Museum for African American History and Culture, the National Law Enforcement Museum, and the National Museum of the American Indian, there is still no institution in the capital region dedicated to women's role in our country's history. This National Women's History Museum Commission Act would be a good step toward rectifying this oversight. The legislation is very straightforward and would simply establish a commission, similar to what was done for the African American History and Culture Museum, to develop a feasible plan for the establishment of such a museum in here in Washington, D.C. However, unlike previous museum commissions, taxpayers will not shoulder the funding of this project. The proposed legislation calls for the commission to fund its own costs. A museum dedicated to women's history would help ensure that future generations understand what we owe to the many generations of American women who have helped build, sustain, and advance our society. These key moments in history deserve a museum, which would present the stories of pioneering women like abolitionist Harriet Tubman, founder of the Girl Scouts Juliette Gordon Low, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, astronaut Sally Ride, and Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith. Of special pride to the State of Maine is a legendary predecessor in the Senate seat I now hold: Margaret Chase Smith who was the first woman nominated for President of the United States by a major political party, and the first woman elected to both houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1940, won election to the Senate in 1948, and enjoyed bipartisan respect over her long career for her independence, integrity, wisdom, and courage. She remains my role model and, through the example of her public service, an exemplar of the virtues that would be honored in the National Women's History Museum. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the President's nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. I know Senator Chuck Hagel well from having served with him for many years in the Senate. We were sworn in as Senators on the same day and traveled to Iraq together in 2003 as part of the first Senate delegation there after the war began. Senator Hagel's courageous military service deserves our praise and gratitude, and I know he cares deeply about our servicemembers. His experience as a soldier during the war in Vietnam is significant as the Senate considers his nomination to be Secretary of Defense, but, of course, it is but one factor that we must weigh in our consideration of him for this critical Cabinet post. Senator Hagel and I spent 90 minutes in my office discussing a wide range of issues, which I appreciated, and I reviewed carefully the lengthy Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on his nomination. The next Secretary of Defense will be responsible for managing a massive bureaucracy, the defense budget, threats emanating from Iran, North Korea, and Islamist extremism, the withdrawal of United States combat forces from Afghanistan, and an increasingly provocative Chinese military as well as personnel issues affecting those serving in uniform. With regard to our servicemembers, I am confident that Senator Hagel would devote the necessary attention to address the horrendous rate of sexual assault in the military and would work to reduce the unacceptable, record high number of suicides among our troops. As the coauthor with former Senator Joe Lieberman of the law that repealed the military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy that barred openly gay people from serving in the military, I am now satisfied that Senator Hagel is committed to implementing this law fully. We also discussed the specter of sequestration, which would lead to irresponsible cuts that would cripple our readiness and capability to project power on land, air, and sea. Senator Hagel reiterated Secretary Leon Panetta's position that such meat-ax cuts would be disastrous and catastrophic to our national security and economy. In addition, I understand Senator Hagel's overall philosophy on the need to exercise caution before deploying military forces. Such restraint, at times, can provide a valuable voice of caution to temper the impulse to exercise America's significant military edge. Nevertheless, several critical issues loom large as I contemplate the threats facing our national security and consider Senator Hagel's nomination. These issues include the proliferation of terrorism, the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran and the reality of a nuclear-armed North Korea, an increasingly dangerous and unstable Middle East that threatens our national interests and our ally Israel, and the possibility of deep and indiscriminate cuts in the defense budget that would undermine America's strength and security. While Osama bin Laden is dead and al-Qaida has suffered significant losses in Afghanistan and Pakistan, violent Islamist extremism has metastasized to other regions around the world, particularly to the countries in North Africa. The terrorist attack in Benghazi left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, and an attack killed three Americans at an Algerian gas facility. AQAP's top bomb- maker is still at large, and Hezbollah and Hamas continue to rearm in Lebanon and Gaza. Hundreds of rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel, the vast majority fortunately stopped by the highly effective Iron Dome. Senator Hagel's views on these critical threats are unsettling to me. For example, with regard to Hezbollah, Senator Hagel was unwilling to ask the European Union to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization in 2006. While 88 other Senators, including then-Senators Obama and Clinton, supported this reasonable request, Senator Hagel did not. Hezbollah has the blood of more Americans on its hands than any other terrorist organization besides al-Qaida, yet Senator Hagel refused to urge the EU to call Hezbollah what it is--a terrorist organization. Senator Hagel has explained to me that he had a principle of not sending correspondence to foreign leaders because he believes the President, not Congress, conducts foreign policy. Indeed, in January 2009, former Senator Hagel did sign an ill-advised letter counseling Barack Obama to spearhead direct, unconditional talks with Hamas--a position that President Obama wisely chose to disregard. Senator Hagel's general principle of abstaining from sending letters to foreign leaders on policy matters did not, however, preclude him from signing a 2007 letter to the Prime Minister of Vietnam to encourage efforts to bring the Peace Corps to that country. If expanding the Peace Corps' presence warrants an exception to Senator Hagel's policy of not sending letters to foreign leaders, I cannot fathom why a matter as grave and as clear as a request to the EU to name Hezbollah a terrorist group would not warrant a similar exception. When it comes to the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, the American people have been told for several years that Iran is 18 to 24 months away from having the capability to build a nuclear weapon. I fear that we are truly within that time window as I speak today. A nuclear-armed Iran would have grave consequences for the United States and would pose an existential threat to the State of Israel. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran could also fuel the most significant proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East since the dawn of the nuclear age. Thus, Senator Hagel's votes, statements, and views on this grave threat matter a great deal. What concerns me as much as his repeated reluctance previously to leave all options on the table is his past hesitancy to exercise all of the non-military options, such as unilateral sanctions, that are the primary peaceful means of inducing Iran to cease its nuclear weapons program and allow for International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. Senator Hagel supports multi-lateral sanctions contending that they work better and has opposed unilateral sanctions. Certainly, in an ideal world, multi-lateral sanctions can be more effective, and I welcome other countries that wish to join the United States in adopting sanctions. But the United States' imposition of sanctions--even if we were to act virtually alone--not only helps to disrupt Iran's nuclear program but also demonstrates moral leadership. In the last Congress, I introduced legislation to make shipping classification societies choose between doing business with Iran or with the United States Coast Guard. It was a unilateral effort. I did not have the authority to make this change at the U.N. Initially, these organizations thought it would be business as usual. As the bill moved through Congress and now that the bill is law, none of them continues to work with Iran. That's just one example of an effective unilateral action. Particularly concerning to me is a press report that Senator Hagel thwarted an effort in 2008 to pass sanctions against Iran that was supported by more than 70 Senators. The Department of Defense contends that Senator Hagel joined other Republican Senators in holding the Iran Sanctions bill due to concerns they and the Bush administration had on how to impose the most effective sanctions on Iran. According to the Department, his disagreement was not with the objectives of the bill, but was a vote based on its effectiveness at that time. I am not, however, aware of any other Republican Senator blocking that bill. Furthermore, it does not matter who else may have been involved because no one but Senator Hagel is the President's nominee to be the Secretary of Defense. We are at a moment in history when there can be no reservation, hesitancy, or opposition to enact any and all sanctions that could change Iran's calculus regarding its pursuit of nuclear weapons. We are seeing a major transformation in the Middle East. The United States' interests in this region are vital: trade through the Suez Canal, the availability of energy resources, the security of Israel, the prevention of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, and the future of Syria which has the potential to destabilize the region. Will we be resolute and stand by our friends and allies, even during this tumultuous time? In our partnership with Israel, there is an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate that we stand by our allies even when the neighborhood looks more dangerous than it has in decades. Unfortunately, I am concerned that Senator Hagel's nomination would send the wrong message at the wrong time to our allies and adversaries around the world about the resolve of the United States. It is telling and disturbing that when I asked Senator Hagel what he believed were the greatest threats facing our country, he identified the resource shortage that could result from the addition of two billion more people during the next couple decades as near the top of his list. While there no doubt will be tremendous challenges associated with this development, his response concerned me when I consider all of the enormous near-term threats facing our country. In my judgment, Islamist terrorism, a nuclear-armed North Korea and potentially a nuclear-armed Iran, an unstable and chaotic Middle East, cyber attacks, Chinese provocations, and budget constraints will likely consume the attention of our country's national security leaders during the next 4 years. I believe a vote in favor of Senator Hagel would send the wrong signal to our military, the American people, and to the world about America's resolve regarding the most important national security challenges of our era. I am unable to support Senator Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense because I do not believe his past positions, votes, and statements match the challenges of our time, and his presentations at his hearing did nothing to ease my doubts. I regret having to reach that conclusion given our personal relationship and my admiration for Senator Hagel's military service. But I have concluded that he is not well-suited for the tremendous challenges our country faces during this dangerous era in our history. As I announce my decision to cast my vote in opposition to Senator Hagel's nomination, let me address one final question: Should this nomination, which causes me such great concern, be filibustered? As a general rule, I believe a President has the right to choose the members of his Cabinet, and only in extraordinary circumstances should such a nomination be filibustered. I oppose Senator Hagel's nomination, but I cannot join in a filibuster to block each Senator's right to vote for or against him. I wish that President Obama had made a different choice for this critical position, but he is entitled to have this nominee receive a direct vote on the Senate floor. And I, for one, will vote against the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to rise in strong support of the confirmation of William Kayatta of Maine to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Mr. Kayatta was originally nominated to this position more than 1 year ago. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote last April. Unfortunately, despite his exceptional qualifications, his nomination was stalled by election-year politics. That is finally behind us, and I am pleased the President renominated Mr. Kayatta in January. I wish to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my colleague from Vermont Senator Leahy; the ranking member Senator Grassley; and, indeed, all the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for acting promptly and positively in favor of Mr. Kayatta's renomination. Let me also express my gratitude to the two leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, for moving his nomination so quickly to the Senate floor. Mr. Kayatta is an attorney of exceptional intelligence, extensive experience, and demonstrated integrity. I cannot tell you how highly regarded he is in Maine's legal circles. In fact, if you ask virtually any attorney, judge, prosecutor, law professor or anyone involved in the legal profession in Maine, they will tell you the President could not have made a better choice than Bill Kayatta. He graduated magna cum laude from both Amherst College and Harvard University Law School, where he served as a member of the Law Review. After graduating from law school, Mr. Kayatta clerked for the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Frank Coffin. It is a wonderful symmetry that he now, assuming the confirmation goes well this afternoon, will be joining the court for which he clerked many years ago. In 1980, he joined the prestigious law firm of Pierce Atwood in Portland, ME, where over the subsequent 32 years Bill specialized in complex civil litigation at both the trial and appellate levels. Bill Kayatta has served as chairman of both the Maine Professional Ethics Commission, the Maine Board of Bar Examiners, and as president of the Maine Bar Association. In 2002, Mr. Kayatta was inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers, and in 2010 he was elected by his peers to the college's board of regents. Mr. Kayatta has simultaneously maintained a very substantial pro bono practice. In the year 2010, he received the Maine Bar Foundation's Howard H. Dana Award for career-long pro bono service on behalf of low- income Mainers. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court appointed him as a special master in Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado, an original water rights case. That too is an indication of the Court's confidence in Mr. Kayatta's legal abilities. Finally, Mr. Kayatta has earned the American Bar Association's highest rating: ``unanimously well-qualified,'' reflecting the ABA's assessment of his credentials, experience, and temperament. Mr. Kayatta's impressive background makes him eminently qualified for a seat on the First Circuit. His 30-plus years of real-world litigation experience would bring a valuable perspective to the court. The First Circuit has only six authorized judgeships, the fewest of any circuit. It acutely feels any vacancy that arises. The First Circuit has not been at full strength since January 1, 2012, when Judge Kermit Lipez took active senior status. Now the circuit's caseload must be distributed among just five judges who continue to do their best to provide the timely and measured justice for which the First Circuit has long been known. The State of Maine is very proud of its history of providing superb jurists to the Federal bench. I am confident William Kayatta will continue in that fine tradition, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for his confirmation, a vote that is long overdue but has finally arrived. Again, I wish to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the ranking member, and the two leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, for moving this important nomination to the Senate floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me say, I am very pleased to join with my friend and colleague from New Hampshire to speak out against the indiscriminate meat-ax cuts known in Washington as sequestration that are scheduled to take effect in just 2 weeks' time. We simply must take action to avoid this self-inflicted harm to our economy and to our national security. But what I find inexplicable is a growing acceptance that sequestration is going to go into effect despite the fact that virtually everyone should concede that across- the-board cuts where we don't set priorities do not make sense. There are good programs that deserve to be preserved, there are programs that have outlived their usefulness and should be eliminated, and then there are programs that could be cut and reduced. That is not the approach we are taking. We are not going through the budget in a careful way by identifying programs that could be eliminated or reduced, setting priorities, and making investments. No, we are allowing to go into effect across-the-board cuts that fall disproportionately on the Department of Defense. Indeed, we are already seeing the effects of these cuts on our military because each of the military services has begun planning for the likelihood of deep budget cuts. The Navy is preparing for a civilian hiring freeze and cutting workers at shipyards and base- operated support facilities. I wish to be clear exactly who these employees are. These are the nuclear engineers, the welders, the metal trades workers repairing submarines and ships at the Navy's four public shipyards, including the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in my home State of Maine, which employs half of its workforce from my colleague's State of New Hampshire. I know the senior Senator from New Hampshire shares the concern about this particular installation on the border we share. But, of course, the damage of sequestration extends far beyond just one installation or two States. Just this morning I was over at the Pentagon, and I took advantage of the opportunity to sit down with the Navy's top shipbuilding official to discuss what the impact of sequestration would be for our naval fleet. Well, one example we have already seen. The Navy will keep the USS Abraham Lincoln, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, in port rather than repairing and deploying it. Across the fleet, the Navy is being forced to reduce deployments, maintenance, and overhauls for critical repairs. When we look at the shipbuilding budget, it is evident that sequestration and the continuation of a partial-year funding resolution, known as the continuing resolution, would be absolutely devastating for our Navy, for shipbuilding, and for our skilled industrial base. That includes Bath Iron Works in Maine, which I am so proud of, which builds the best destroyers in the world. This has consequences not only for our workforce, but also for our national security. It is important to note Secretary Panetta has made clear that allowing these sweeping cuts to go into effect would be ``devastating,'' in his words, and would badly damage the readiness of the U.S. military. The fact is defense has already taken a huge reduction in future spending. The defense budget has been slated to be cut by $460 billion over 10 years, and that is before sequestration. When this number is added to the defense cuts scheduled to begin on March 1, we are looking at an enormous impact on our national security. Now, it is important to recognize we are not saying the national debt is not a problem. Certainly, when we have a $16.4 trillion debt, that is not sustainable, and the national debt is a security concern in its own right. Just last year, in 2012, the Federal Government spent $223 billion in interest payments alone. That means we are spending more on interest on the national debt each month than we spent in an entire year on naval shipbuilding and the Coast Guard budget. Just think about that. The interest payment in one month exceeds the entire Coast Guard budget and the entire budget for shipbuilding in the Navy. The estimates are that by the middle of this decade--not some distant year--our interest payments to China, our largest foreign creditor at $1.2 trillion, will be covering the entire cost of that Communist country's military. Think of the horrific irony of that. At the same time America is bound by treaties to defend our allies in Asia against Chinese aggression, the American taxpayers are bankrolling the threat through the interest payments we are paying to the Chinese. Neither the Senator from New Hampshire nor I am saying the Pentagon should be exempt from budget scrutiny or even future cuts, but the disproportionate impact that sequestration would have on our troops and on our national security is dangerous and it must be averted. The Department cannot continue to operate on a continuing resolution that increases costs, prevents long-term planning, and makes it impossible for the Department to function effectively. I yield to my colleague from New Hampshire to expand on some of these points. Then we will talk further about the impact.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first I wish to commend the Senator from New Hampshire for broadening the debate and reminding all of us of the macroeconomic impact, as well as the impact on our two States. The estimate is that Maine's defense industry--which includes not just the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Bath Iron Works, and our Pratt & Whitney plant, but a lot of smaller contractors and suppliers--could lose as many as 4,000 jobs as a result of sequestration. Think about that. That means, as the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, these are people who are supporting their families and who are supporting other businesses in the community. The impact, the ripple effect, is just devastating. That is why it does not surprise me that the Congressional Budget Office has pointed to sequestration as the primary cause for the slow growth we have seen already, and CBO projects as well; that our economy would grow at a faster rate--at 2 percent--if we averted sequestration. These aren't meaningless numbers. They affect real people. The estimates are that we would lose between 1.4 million and 2 million jobs if this is allowed to go into effect nationwide. It is also a failure on the part of Washington to make decisions. If we are going to allow these mindless, indiscriminate cuts to go into effect, why are we here? We might as well have computers or robots making decisions for us. Our job is to do the hard, painful work of setting priorities and making decisions. That is why I am so frustrated by the approach we appear to be on the verge of taking. The Senator from New Hampshire makes a very important point. While the Department of Defense would take a disproportionate impact from sequestration, and I am extremely concerned about that, there are other important programs that would be affected as well. The superintendents groups have met with me and talked about what it would mean for schoolchildren in Maine if halfway through the school year--more than halfway through the school year--all of a sudden they get a reduction in title I money that goes to low-income schools, to special education grants, to other important programs such as Head Start, and the TRIO Program, which helps low-income and first-generation students attend and excel in college. Think about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, biomedical research that is so critical, cuts in the FAA workforce that could reduce air traffic control, disrupting air traffic during the busy summer months. The list goes on and on: essential education, health care, research, transportation programs that deserve support that do not deserve to all be treated the same. Again, I want to emphasize that we recognize spending must be cut and the debt, at $16.4 trillion, is way out of control. That amounts to something like $52,000 for each man, woman, and child in this country. We are committed to seeking pragmatic solutions through compromise and to avoiding this devastation of our economy and our national security. We recognize we have to look at all areas of spending and that we need to overhaul our Tax Code and make it more pro-growth, simpler, and fairer. If ever there were a moment when Members of Congress and the President should put aside their politics for the greater good of the Nation, now is the time. So I, for one, want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for caring so much about this issue. We have agreed to work together--and continue to work together--to address this. These automatic cuts were never supposed to take effect. I remember being told: Do not worry. It is never going to happen. It is too unpalatable. It will just never occur. Well, they were supposed to force us to make the difficult decisions necessary to put our economy on a sound footing and to deal with our unsustainable debt. Our Nation's leaders--the President, Democrats and Republicans alike--have denounced sequestration for the most part, and yet here we are. So I hope we can work together to avoid this fiscal cliff which will have such damaging effects for the people of this Nation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. The Violence Against Women Act has made a significant difference in combating domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, through grants to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations. Since it was first passed in 1994, the programs authorized under this law have provided State and local partners with more than $4.7 billion of assistance. This assistance helps to ensure that the victims of violence get the help they need to recover and has prevented incalculable suffering by stopping violent crimes before they happen. It is extremely important to pass this legislation because all men and women--and men are victims as well as women. In some ways, the name of this law should be changed. But all women and men, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability deserve to be safe and protected from physical violence, and that is what this reauthorization would help to do. Finally, this is not and never should be a partisan issue. Violence and domestic assaults do not discriminate between Republicans and Democrats, Independents and Greens, or people who are not politically active at all. This is an equal opportunity crime that harms people regardless of their political affiliation, their profession, their location, or their status in life. It is an issue that deserves bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come together and pass this important bill. I recognize there may be some provisions of this bill which are controversial; but, surely, we can come together in support of the goal of this vital legislation. We can work out differences if not on the Senate floor then in conference with the House; but, surely, we can come together and reauthorize this law that has made such a difference to so many in our country. Exhibit 1 Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Augusta, ME, February 4, 2013. Hon. Susan M. Collins, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MECASA), and the sexual assault crisis and support centers we represent, I am writing to express our strong support for S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2013. By reauthorizing and making significant improvements to these important programs, this legislation will help fulfill the critical unmet needs of victims of violence and expand protections to currently under-protected populations. VAWA has provided invaluable support for law enforcement, courts, sexual assault crisis and support centers, domestic violence service providers, prevention efforts, and community outreach. In the past decade, nearly half of Maine's homicides have been the result of domestic violence, many of which included elements of sexual violence. Additionally, nearly 13,000 Mainers will experience sexual violence this year alone while Maine's ten-year average for rapes reported to law enforcement is only 364. The cost of these crimes to Maine is enormous. VAWA helps control these costs by enabling support centers to provide free, necessary, quality services to victims who need help, not to mention the incalculable suffering that these programs help prevent. Since the original passage of VAWA, Maine has strengthened laws regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking and has implemented programs which continue to yield tangible results for victims and for public safety. Despite VAWA's success, its criminal justice and community-based programs remain acutely necessary. According to a recent study by the University of Southern Maine's Muskie School of Public Service, nearly one in five Mainers reported having been the victim of sexual assault or an attempted sexual assault in his or her lifetime. Nationally, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly one in five women and one in 71 men have been raped at some time in their lives, and one in four women and one in seven men experience severe physical violence by an intimate partner. MECASA supports efforts to further strengthen and improve the response of the criminal justice, legal, and victim support systems for survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. We are grateful to you for your steadfast support of VAWA and your commitment to violence prevention and response. Thank you for all you do on behalf of Maine and our nation. Sincerely, Elizabeth Ward Saxl, Executive Director.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am honored to be an original cosponsor of the bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Let me thank the two leaders of that important bill, Senators Leahy and Crapo, for their work to ensure that the Senate makes renewing this important law a high priority early in this Congress. I also wish to acknowledge the work of the many advocates who have delivered so strongly the message to Congress and to the public that we must do more to prevent violence from occurring in our homes and in our communities. Our law enforcement officers, counselors, social workers, health care professionals, public educators, and community service providers are truly on the front lines of the effort to help those who are the victims of violence and to help prevent violence from occurring in the first place. Their advocacy on behalf of these victims has helped to make this bill a priority. I commend them all for the work they are doing each and every day. In my home State of Maine, we are fortunate to have a very low crime rate, but law enforcement officials tell me that the two greatest areas of concern are domestic violence and drugs. Often, these two go hand in hand. In fact, a 2011 study by the University of Southern Maine's Muskie School of Public Service found that 65 percent of victims of crime in Maine believe the offender was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time. Over the last decade, occurrences of domestic violence have resulted in nearly half of all homicides in my State. Nearly half are the result of incidents of domestic violence. According to statistics from the Maine Department of Public Safety, there were 5,360 reported domestic assaults in the year 2011, which is nearly a 5-percent increase from the previous year. This equates to one domestic assault every 1 hour and 38 minutes, and this is in a State with a very low crime rate. Nationally, one in four women and one in seven men experience severe physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner. In addition, Maine's 10-year average is 364 rapes per year. Think about that. That is almost one rape per day in a State with a very low crime rate. Those are only the reported crimes. I suspect the actual number is even higher. According to the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault, an estimated 13,000 Mainers will experience some form of sexual violence this year alone. Currently, rape has the lowest reporting, arrest, and prosecution rate of all violent crimes in the United States. So I am very pleased that this year's reauthorization bill also includes the provisions of the Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Registry--or SAFER--Act, which was authored by our colleague, Senator John Cornyn. I commend the Senator for his leadership in that area, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of his bill, which unanimously passed in the last Congress in the Senate and has been incorporated into the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. This bipartisan bill, the SAFER Act, would authorize the Attorney General to award grants to State and local governments to audit and reduce the backlog of untested rape kits. Mr. President, I think you will share my shock and alarm at the number of these kits which are sitting in the possession of law enforcement agencies and which could contain DNA evidence that would lead to prosecutions and help get rapists off the streets and yet have not been analyzed. The estimate is that between 300,000 and 400,000 of these kits are just sitting in the possession of law enforcement agencies but have not been analyzed. That is totally unacceptable. The reauthorization bill we introduced last week would help ensure that Maine and every other State has the necessary resources to support victims of violence and, whenever possible, to prevent violence from occurring in the first place. Elizabeth Saxl, the executive director of the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault, recently wrote to me in support of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. She noted this in her letter: By reauthorizing and making significant improvements to these important programs, this legislation will help fulfill the critical unmet needs of victims of violence and expand protections to currently under-protected populations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that her letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to expand the geographic boundaries of HUBZones located at former U.S. military installations closed through the so-called Base Closure and Realignment--or BRAC--process. This legislation mirrors S. 3675, the HUBZone Expansion Act of 2012, which I introduced with Senator Snowe last session. I am pleased to have my new colleague from Maine, Senator Angus King, join me in offering this legislation. Senator King knows the impact a base closing can have on a local community all too well, coming as he does from Brunswick, ME, which recently lost a major military installation through the BRAC process. Military bases are often the economic heart of the towns and cities in which they are located, and communities can struggle for years to overcome the closure of those facilities. In recognition of this fact, Congress passed legislation providing HUBZone status for 5 years to military facilities closed through the BRAC process. This allows small businesses located within the HUBZone to obtain certain federal contracting preferences. The HUBZone program is also available to small businesses located in ``economically distressed communities,'' that suffer from low income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are currently 127 BRAC-related HUBZones in the United States. Unfortunately, for many of the military bases that have been closed, HUBZone status has not brought the benefits we had hoped for. One of the reasons is simple-- the law defines the geographic boundaries of a BRAC-related HUBZone to be the same as the boundaries of the base that was closed. When that is combined with the requirement that 35 percent of the employees of a qualifying business must live within the HUBZone, the problem is clear: very few people live on these former bases, so it is difficult or impossible for businesses to get the workers they need to meet the requirements of the HUBZone program. As I mentioned, one of these HUBZones is located at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, in Brunswick, Maine. This facility closed in 2011, as a result of the 2005 BRAC round. When the Navy left, Brunswick and its neighbor, Topsham, lost more than 2400 military and civilian personnel. These two towns have a combined population of just 22,000, so losing the Naval Air Station has had a significant economic impact on them. Because so few people actually live within the boundaries of the former base, its HUBZone designation does not provide the help they need, and that we had hoped for. My legislation would expand the geographic boundaries of BRAC-related HUBZones to include the town or county where the closed installation is located, or census tracts contiguous to the installation, up to a total population base of 50,000. This would provide a large enough pool of potential workers to enable qualifying businesses to locate within the HUBZone, and to help host communities overcome the loss of military installations closed through the BRAC process. The Association of Defense Communities has endorsed the concept of expanding BRAC-related HUBZones in this manner. In December, the ADC wrote to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, noting how important it is that ``Congress restore its intent to support BRAC-impacted communities attracting small businesses to help build and strengthen their local economies.'' Steve Levesque, the Executive Director of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, or ``MRRA,'' which oversees the redevelopment of the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, has also urged Congress to modify the HUBZone program. In a letter to me last month, Steve explained that BRAC facilities do not have the residential areas needed to support the 35 percent residency requirement for businesses located within the HUBZone. As a consequence, these businesses cannot ``realize the HUBZone benefits for BRAC'd installations as envisioned by Congress.'' This point was underscored in a letter from Heather Blease, an entrepreneur who is hoping to locate a new business at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station. Ms. Blease describes the HUBZone law as ``flawed,'' because the 35 percent residency requirement makes it impossible for businesses like hers to achieve HUBZone status. I ask my collegues to consider the legislation we are offering today to help communities get back on their feet after the loss of a military installation closed through the BRAC process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to expand the geographic boundaries of HUBZones located at former U.S. military installations closed through the so-called Base Closure and Realignment--or BRAC--process. This legislation mirrors S. 3675, the HUBZone Expansion Act of 2012, which I introduced with Senator Snowe last session. I am pleased to have my new colleague from Maine, Senator Angus King, join me in offering this legislation. Senator King knows the impact a base closing can have on a local community all too well, coming as he does from Brunswick, ME, which recently lost a major military installation through the BRAC process. Military bases are often the economic heart of the towns and cities in which they are located, and communities can struggle for years to overcome the closure of those facilities. In recognition of this fact, Congress passed legislation providing HUBZone status for 5 years to military facilities closed through the BRAC process. This allows small businesses located within the HUBZone to obtain certain federal contracting preferences. The HUBZone program is also available to small businesses located in ``economically distressed communities,'' that suffer from low income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are currently 127 BRAC-related HUBZones in the United States. Unfortunately, for many of the military bases that have been closed, HUBZone status has not brought the benefits we had hoped for. One of the reasons is simple-- the law defines the geographic boundaries of a BRAC-related HUBZone to be the same as the boundaries of the base that was closed. When that is combined with the requirement that 35 percent of the employees of a qualifying business must live within the HUBZone, the problem is clear: very few people live on these former bases, so it is difficult or impossible for businesses to get the workers they need to meet the requirements of the HUBZone program. As I mentioned, one of these HUBZones is located at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, in Brunswick, Maine. This facility closed in 2011, as a result of the 2005 BRAC round. When the Navy left, Brunswick and its neighbor, Topsham, lost more than 2400 military and civilian personnel. These two towns have a combined population of just 22,000, so losing the Naval Air Station has had a significant economic impact on them. Because so few people actually live within the boundaries of the former base, its HUBZone designation does not provide the help they need, and that we had hoped for. My legislation would expand the geographic boundaries of BRAC-related HUBZones to include the town or county where the closed installation is located, or census tracts contiguous to the installation, up to a total population base of 50,000. This would provide a large enough pool of potential workers to enable qualifying businesses to locate within the HUBZone, and to help host communities overcome the loss of military installations closed through the BRAC process. The Association of Defense Communities has endorsed the concept of expanding BRAC-related HUBZones in this manner. In December, the ADC wrote to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, noting how important it is that ``Congress restore its intent to support BRAC-impacted communities attracting small businesses to help build and strengthen their local economies.'' Steve Levesque, the Executive Director of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, or ``MRRA,'' which oversees the redevelopment of the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, has also urged Congress to modify the HUBZone program. In a letter to me last month, Steve explained that BRAC facilities do not have the residential areas needed to support the 35 percent residency requirement for businesses located within the HUBZone. As a consequence, these businesses cannot ``realize the HUBZone benefits for BRAC'd installations as envisioned by Congress.'' This point was underscored in a letter from Heather Blease, an entrepreneur who is hoping to locate a new business at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station. Ms. Blease describes the HUBZone law as ``flawed,'' because the 35 percent residency requirement makes it impossible for businesses like hers to achieve HUBZone status. I ask my collegues to consider the legislation we are offering today to help communities get back on their feet after the loss of a military installation closed through the BRAC process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of efforts to restore to the supplemental appropriations bill $150 million in disaster funding for officially declared fisheries disasters. The bill that the Senate passed in December, with overwhelming bipartisan support, included this $150 million in necessary disaster funding to address federally declared fisheries disasters. Unfortunately, the bill before us, passed by the House, did not include this critical funding. It is important to note that this funding would be used to respond to fishery disasters declared by the Acting Commerce Secretary in 2012 under the authority provided by the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act. This is authorized funding in response to declared disasters. The funding for declared fisheries disasters is necessary to address the devastating economic consequences of significant projected reductions in the total allowable catch for critical groundfish stocks. In September of last year, the Acting Secretary of Commerce, recognizing the economic difficulty that fishing communities have and will continue to face, declared a Federal fisheries disaster for Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Connecticut for the 2013 fishing year. Fishing is more than just a profession in New England. Fishing is a way of life and a significant part of Maine's heritage. There are 45 vessels based in Maine that are actively fishing with Federal groundfish permits. Last year, more than 5 million pounds of groundfish, with a dockside value approaching $5.8 million, were landed in Maine. The projected reductions, which may be as high as 73 percent, could devastate these fishing communities and come despite strict adherence to rigorous management practices by fishermen. The requested funding would be used to provide economic relief to the region's struggling groundfish industry and to make targeted investments that will allow the fleet to survive and become more sustainable in the years ahead. These funds could also be productively used to fully cover the costs of at-sea monitoring and to address long- term overcapacity in the fishing industry. This is critical to rebuilding fish stocks and preserving a thriving fishing industry well into the future. Slow recovery and declining fish stocks continue to have a negative impact on commercial fishing, harming local communities and economies. This Federal disaster assistance is vital to the long-term success and short-term survival of fishing communities throughout the region.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the passage of the ``Protect Our Kids Act,'' which will create a commission with the goal of eliminating child abuse fatalities. The effort to address child abuse transcends ideological and partisan lines. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue--this is an American issue--one that we can't wish away, but that we must face head on and work to eradicate. Senator Kerry and I originally introduced the Protect Our Kids Act last year, and I am pleased that we have moved forward with this critical, updated legislation. Senator Kerry and I also introduced a resolution recognizing April as Child Abuse Prevention Month. The passage of the Protect Our Kids Act further represents our commitment to put an end to child abuse in the United States. Child abuse fatalities are preventable; yet, approximately 1,770 children are reported as dying from child abuse each year, and many experts believe the actual number may be significantly higher. This legislation would establish a commission to develop a national strategy for reducing child abuse fatalities. The commission will include a variety of professionals with expertise in areas such as child welfare advocacy, child development, pediatrics, medical examining, social work, law enforcement and education. Through new research, hearings and the use and coordination of existing information, the commission will provide a report with its recommendations for developing a comprehensive national strategy for reducing child abuse fatalities. Increased understanding of maltreatment deaths can lead to improvement in agency systems and practices to protect children and prevent child abuse and neglect. Therefore, it is imperative that we take action to capitalize on the commission's findings. This legislation requires the commission's report to be submitted to relevant Federal agencies and Congressional committees. All agencies with recommendations that fall under their jurisdiction must then submit their reaction and plans to address such recommendations to Congress within 6 months. Approximately 6 million kids are reported to be abused or neglected each year. We know this can be prevented. This legislation is an important step that Congress and our Nation should take in order to better protect our kids.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Joe Lieberman, in submitting for the Congressional Record our investigative report on the terrorist attack against the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, that claimed the lives of four Americans who were serving our country. This report is indeed the last initiative the chairman and I will produce together. It is the final work product of 10 years of cooperation and collaboration and was authored in the same bipartisan spirit as our investigations into the attack at Fort Hood and into the Government's response to Hurricane Katrina, among many others. I will so miss working with Chairman Lieberman. He is an extraordinary Senator who has contributed so much during his years in the Senate and as a leader of our committee. Sadly, our last official act together was prompted by the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11 of this year that took the lives of our Ambassador and three other brave Americans. Our findings and recommendations are based on the extensive investigative work the committee has conducted since shortly after the attack of September 11, 2012, including meetings with senior and midlevel government officials; reviews of literally thousands of pages of documents, both classified and unclassified, provided by the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community; a review of written responses to questions posed by our committee to numerous agencies; our consultations with security experts and former officials; and our review of publicly available documents. Our investigation found that the terrorists essentially walked right into the Benghazi compound, unimpeded, and set it ablaze due to extremely poor security in a threat environment that was indeed ``flashing red,'' in the words of a high-ranking State Department official. As we all recognize, the ultimate responsibility for this atrocity lies with the terrorists who attacked our diplomats. Nevertheless, there are several lessons we must learn from this tragedy if we are to make our diplomats safer in the future. It is in that spirit that we are putting our unclassified report into the Record so that we can share it with our colleagues and with the American people. We will have more to say about our specific findings and recommendations when we release the report tomorrow. In the months leading up to the attack, it was well known in Washington that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and at risk for a significant attack. Our mission facility in Benghazi was itself the target of two prior attacks involving improvised explosive devices, including an April attack in which one current and one former contract guard at the facility were suspects, and a June attack that blew a hole in the perimeter wall. There were also multiple attacks on other western targets, including a June attack in which a rocket propelled grenade was fired at the convoy of the British ambassador to Libya, injuring two British bodyguards. Yet, the State Department failed to take adequate steps to reduce the facility's vulnerability to a terrorist attack of this kind. While the Department and the Intelligence Community lacked specific intelligence about this attack, the State Department should not have waited for--or expected--specific warnings before increasing its security in Benghazi, a city awash with weapons and violent extremists. Our report also underscores the need for the Intelligence Community to enhance its focus on violent Islamist extremist groups in the region to improve the likelihood of obtaining such intelligence. The lesson about over-dependence on such intelligence, however, is not new. The independent Accountability Review Board reports following the 1998 attacks on our embassies in Africa found that ``both the intelligence and policy communities relied excessively on tactical intelligence to determine the level of potential terrorist threats to posts worldwide,'' yet prior security reviews and ``previous experience indicate[d] that terrorist attacks are often not preceded by warning intelligence.'' The State Department must finally take this lesson to heart. The State Department failed to implement adequate security measures to account for the fact that there was no reasonable expectation that the host government--Libya--would protect our diplomats. There was an overreliance on the rule of international law when Benghazi was operating under the rule of militias outside the effective control of the central Libyan government. The unreliability and conflicting loyalties of the Libyan militia and the unarmed Blue Mountain guards hired to protect the facility are deeply troubling, especially since this problem was recognized long before the attack. Despite evidence that they were not dependable, American personnel were forced to rely upon them far too much. For example, in August, State Department personnel in Benghazi stated that ``[m]ission opinion is that Libyan security forces are indifferent to the safety needs of the U.S. mission.'' This proved all too true. When a host nation cannot adequately protect our diplomats, the State Department must provide additional security measures of its own, urgently press the host government to upgrade its security forces, or remove U.S. personnel until appropriate steps can be taken to provide adequate security. It is telling that the British government removed its personnel from Benghazi after the attack on its ambassador. Too often, the State Department failed to sufficiently respond to--or even ignored--repeated requests from those on the ground in Benghazi for security resources, especially for more personnel. Ironically, the challenges facing the security personnel in Benghazi were well summarized in a March 2012 write-up from the top U.S. security officer in Benghazi as he sought to recognize his security agents with a meritorious honor award. The official justified the award based upon the fact that, ``Agent ingenuity took over where funding and Department restrictions left off.'' The temporary and junior security personnel in Benghazi pleaded for more help from Washington and Tripoli, but they were forced to make do on their own. The Department must also reassess its local guard programs, particularly the use at high-risk posts of local guard contractors who do not meet standards necessary for the protection of our personnel or facilities. I have previously noted the parallels and repeated mistakes identified in the report on the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and we include several of these in our report. One of the recurring lessons is that the President and Congress must work together to ensure that we appropriately fund security for the State Department. We have seen finger pointing about the lack of resources for embassy security, but the budget is a shared responsibility. The inadequate security in Benghazi was a product of both budgets approved by Congress and of the desire of the administration for a light footprint. Overall, appropriations for the Department of State's security have increased by 27 percent since 2007 and Congress has generally been responsive in providing supplemental and Overseas Contingency Operations--OCO--funds to the Department of State. But, there was no supplemental or OCO request made by the President for additional embassy security enhancements in the last three years. The administration must reevaluate its budget priorities, and since the Benghazi attack, Secretary Clinton is undertaking such a review. She has asked to reprogram $1.4 billion of the FY13 budget request to jump start this effort. The lack of resources is just one of a number of factors we identified in our report that contributed to a perfect storm on the night of September 11. Our report also calls for the State Department to work more closely with the Department of Defense and the intelligence community to improve the security of our diplomats in high-threat areas when our national interests require their presence. When a host nation cannot protect our personnel, the Department of State must work more effectively with the Department of Defense to assign and deploy military assets, such as Marine Security Guards, and plan for contingencies in the event of an attack. One of our findings is that, while the Defense Department attempted to mobilize its resources quickly, it had neither the personnel nor other assets close enough to reach Benghazi in a timely fashion. Indeed, as we learned, the Combatant Commander of U.S. Africa Command did not have complete visibility regarding the number of U.S. government personnel in Benghazi who would require evacuation in the event of an attack. Our diplomats are increasingly being called on to serve in dangerous posts, in countries where emerging democracies lack the ability to protect U.S. personnel and where terrorists and extremist factions harbor antipathy toward the West. The U.S. cannot afford to retreat entirely from dangerous places where our country's interests are at stake, nor is it possible or smart to transform every diplomatic post into a fortress. The absence of reasonable time-tested security measures is, however, unacceptable in such high-risk countries. When a host nation cannot adequately protect our diplomats or if the State Department and other U.S. agencies cannot work together to provide appropriate security, we cannot ignore the option of temporarily removing U.S. personnel until appropriate steps can be taken to provide adequate security. Finally, our report concludes that the attack in Benghazi was recognized as a terrorist attack by the intelligence community from the beginning. Nonetheless, administration officials were inconsistent in stating publicly that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack. If the fact that Benghazi was indeed a terrorist attack had been made clear from the outset by the administration, there would have been much less confusion about what happened in Benghazi that terrible night. The attack clearly was not a peaceful protest in response to a hateful anti-Muslim video that evolved into a violent incident. It was a terrorist attack by an opportunistic enemy. This, too, is not a new lesson. One of the key lessons of this Committee's 6- year focus on the threat of violent Islamist extremism is that, in order to understand and counter the threat we face, we must clearly identify that threat. We have repeatedly expressed our disappointment in the administration's reluctance to identify violent Islamist extremism as our enemy--while making the sharp distinction between the peaceful religion of Islam and a twisted corruption of that religion used to justify violence. The administration's inconsistent statements about whether this was a terrorist attack are symptomatic of this recurring problem. We hope this lesson will finally be heeded. Ultimately, it is with the goal of enabling continued U.S. engagement around the world to support our own national interests that we offer our findings and recommendations regarding the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. The men and women who serve our country in dangerous posts deserve no less. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his extraordinary work on this very important project.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, fishing is more than just a profession in New England. Fishing is a culture and a way of life. In recent years, Maine's fishermen and fishing communities have been struggling to survive among Federal regulations that have limited fishing opportunities. On September 13, 2012, the acting Secretary of Commerce declared a Federal fisheries disaster for Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Connecticut because of the significant projected reductions in the total allowable catch for critical groundfish stocks. The expected and considerable catch limit reductions have been triggered by recently updated stock assessments that show that several key groundfish populations are significantly below the levels necessary to meet the rebuilding deadlines that are mandated by Federal law. The projected reductions, which may be as high as 73 percent, will come despite strict adherence to new and rigorous management practices by fishermen. There are approximately 45 Maine-based vessels actively fishing with Federal groundfish permits. Last year, more than 5 million pounds of groundfish, with a dockside value approaching $5.8 million, were landed in Maine. Given the magnitude of the projected cuts, the effect on these Maine vessels and vessels of all sizes and gear types throughout the region will be profound. It will add to the already considerable economic burdens that fishing communities are facing. Federal assistance is necessary to support these fishermen and the fishing related businesses in our coastal communities. The requested funding will be used to provide both immediate economic relief to the region's struggling groundfish industry, and to make targeted investments that will allow the fleet to survive and become more sustainable in the years ahead. These funds could also be productively used to fully cover the costs of at-sea monitoring and to address long term overcapacity in the fishing industry. This is critical to rebuilding fish stocks and preserving a thriving fishing industry well into the future. Slow recovery and declining fish stocks will continue to have a negative impact on commercial fishing, harming local communities and economies. Federal disaster assistance is vital to the long term success and short term survival of fishing communities throughout the region. It is important to note that the funding provided in the bill is to respond to fishery disasters declared by the acting Commerce Secretary in 2012 under the authority provided by the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act. This is authorized funding in response to declared disasters. Amendment No. 3371

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I appreciate the time and attention of my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester, regarding the intent of this language, as well as the care that he took in crafting this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to engage my colleague, Senator Tester, in a colloquy regarding language he authored in this bill that would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. This language would authorize chief executives of federally recognized tribes to submit a request for a major disaster or emergency declaration directly to the President of the United States. The principal effect of this language would be to eliminate the current requirement that tribal chief executives submit such requests to the Governor of the State in which the tribal reservation is located; tribal chief executives would be permitted to submit such requests to the President without first obtaining the Governor's approval. The tribes of Maine--the Penobscot, the Passamaquoddy, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, and the Aroostook Band of Micmacs--have a jurisdictional relationships with the State of Maine which is unique among the 50 States. Although, based on my analysis, this language would not in any way affect the relationship between the State of Maine and the tribes of Maine, to make this clear, I would like to pose some questions to the Senator regarding the intent of the language. The jurisdictional relationship between the tribes of Maine and the State of Maine is set forth in the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and the Maine Implementing Act, the latter having been enacted by the Maine State Legislature and ratified and approved by Congress when it enacted the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act. If the language the Senator authored was to be enacted into law, would this in any way change the relationship of the State of Maine and the tribes of Maine?

Ms. COLLINS. Did my colleague also consider the unique foundation for the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and the Maine Implementing Act, as well as the subsequent acts for the Houlton Band and the Aroostook Band?

Ms. COLLINS. Did the Senator take Section 1735 into account in his drafting of this legislation?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. With his family at his side, the last word spoken by Senator Daniel Inouye in this life was ``aloha.'' To the people of Hawaii, it is a word with a meaning far beyond simply ``hello'' or ``goodbye.'' It is a word of profound significance, one that describes a spirit of service to others, of compassion, and reverence. It is the best possible epitaph for my cherished friend and colleague. Dan Inouye lived that spirit every day of a long and remarkable life. When Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941, he was there, serving as a medical volunteer in the most horrific and dangerous circumstances. When the ban on Japanese Americans serving in the U.S. military was lifted in 1943, he immediately enlisted. In the closing days of World War II, when his platoon came under intense enemy fire, Second Lieutenant Inouye led the attack, despite grievous wounds. That extraordinary heroism earned Dan Inouye the Medal of Honor but cost him his right arm and his dream of becoming a surgeon. In the true ``Aloha Spirit,'' he found another way to serve, first as a member of the Hawaii Territorial Legislature, and then, when statehood was achieved in 1959, as Hawaii's first Member of Congress. In 1962, Dan was elected to the Senate, beginning a half century of contributions, accomplishments, and leadership on behalf of this institution and our Nation. He was the first Japanese American elected to the Congress and a stalwart champion of civil rights for all. He was a decorated hero who fought for the rights and benefits of all veterans. From his daily work in the Senate to his exceptional service on the Watergate and Iran-Contra committees, Dan approached every task with the determination to do what was best for our country. I was privileged to serve with Dan on the Appropriations Committee and honored to join him in the Gang of 14 to preserve the tradition of open debate in the Senate. No matter how difficult the issue, he always conducted himself with dignity and civility. In this time of sorrow, I offer my deep condolences to the Inouye family. I hope they will find comfort in knowing that this great patriot and public servant leave a legacy that will inspire Americans for generations to come. And to Senator Daniel Inouye I say, aloha pumehana, my friend. Farewell with my deepest regards and affection.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President in his farewell message to the people of Hawaii, Senator Daniel Akaka wrote that his dream was always to work in a job in which he could help people. In his 36 years in Congress--14 in the House of Representatives and 22 here in the Senate--Danny Akaka has done that job exceedingly well. He has done it with statesmanship and perseverance. As just one example, just a few weeks ago, President Obama signed into law landmark legislation to better protect Federal employees who come forward to disclose government waste, fraud, abuse, and other wrongdoing. The Akaka-Collins Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act would not have passed without Danny's determination to help both our dedicated Federal workers and the citizens they serve. Serving with Danny on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I appreciate the priority he always placed on making the Federal Government more efficient and transparent, and on advancing policies to attract, recruit, and retain the skilled workforce needed to meet today's challenges. From safeguarding our Nation against terrorist attacks to supporting the first responders in our communities, Danny has been a great ally and a true leader. It also has been an honor to work with Danny on the Armed Services Committee. As a World War II veteran, he brought to the committee a deep and personal understanding of the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform, and by their families. He is a champion of efforts to ensure that our Active National Guard and Reserve personnel have the equipment and training to remain the best fighting force in the world, and he is dedicated to providing our veterans with the services they earned and deserve. Danny Akaka has been described as the ``Aloha Senator.'' To most of us, that multi-purpose word can mean anything from ``hello'' to ``goodbye.'' To the Hawaiian people, it is a word of deep spirituality and profound meaning. The late Reverend Abraham Akaka, Danny's oldest brother and one of Hawaii's most beloved clergymen, defined the ``Aloha Spirit'' this way: ``God first, others second, yourself last.'' As a patriot and statesman, Senator Daniel Akaka embodies that spirit through his desire to promote the true good of others and to help people. Aloha pumehana, Senator Akaka, farewell with my deepest regards and affection. Thank you for your friendship and for your service to our country.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, with Senator Snowe, to expand the geographic boundaries of HUBZones located at former U.S. military installations that have been closed through the so-called Base Closure and Realignment--or BRAC--process. These military installations were often the economic heart of the community in which they were located, and those communities can struggle for years to overcome the closure of those facilities. In recognition of this fact, Congress passed legislation providing ``HUBZone'' status for 5 years to military facilities closed through the BRAC process. Last week, the Defense Reauthorization bill passed by the Senate included language, authored by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, to extend HUBZone status for these facilities for an additional five years. The HUBZone program provides certain federal contracting preferences to small businesses located within a HUBZone. In addition to the BRAC- related HUBZones I have already mentioned, HUBZones are located in ``economically distressed communities,'' that suffer from low income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are currently 127 BRAC-related HUBZones in the United States. Unfortunately, for many of the military bases that have been closed, HUBZone status has not brought the benefits we had hoped for. One of the reasons is simple-- the law defines the geographic boundaries of a BRAC-related HUBZone to be the same as the boundaries of the base that was closed. When that is combined with the requirement that 35 percent of the employees of a qualifying business must live within the HUBZone, the problem is clear: very few people live on these former bases, so it is difficult or impossible for businesses to get the workers they need to meet the requirements of the HUBZone program. One of these HUBZones is located at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, in Brunswick, Maine. This facility closed in 2011, as a result of the 2005 BRAC round. When the Navy left, the host community lost more than 2400 military and civilian personnel. Brunswick and its neighbor, Topsham, have a combined population of just 22,000, so losing the Naval Air Station has had a significant economic impact on these communities. Because so few people actually live within the boundaries of the former base, its HUBZone designation does not provide any real assistance to these communities. My legislation would expand the geographic boundaries of BRAC-related HUBZones to include the town or county where the closed installation is located, or census tracts contiguous to the installation, up to a total population base of 50,000. This would provide a large enough pool of potential workers to enable qualifying businesses to locate within the HUBZone, and to help host communities overcome the loss of military installations closed through the BRAC process. The Association of Defense Communities has endorsed the concept of expanding BRAC-related HUBZones in this manner. In a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, the ADC noted how important it is that ``Congress restore its intent to support BRAC-impacted communities attracting small businesses to help build and strengthen their local economies.'' Steve Levesque, the Executive Director of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, or MRRA, which oversees the redevelopment of the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, also urges Congress to modify the HUBZone program. In a letter, Steve explained that BRAC facilities do not have the residential areas needed to support the 35 percent residency requirement for businesses located within the HUBZone. As a consequence, these businesses cannot ``realize the HUBZone benefits for BRAC'd installations as envisioned by Congress.'' This point was underscored in a letter from Heather Blease, an entrepreneur who is hoping to locate a new business at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station. Ms. Blease describes the HUBZone law as ``flawed,'' because the 35 percent residency requirement makes it impossible for businesses like hers to achieve HUBZone status. I ask my colleagues to consider the legislation I am offering today to help communities get back on their feet after the loss of a military installation closed through the BRAC process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, with Senator Snowe, to expand the geographic boundaries of HUBZones located at former U.S. military installations that have been closed through the so-called Base Closure and Realignment--or BRAC--process. These military installations were often the economic heart of the community in which they were located, and those communities can struggle for years to overcome the closure of those facilities. In recognition of this fact, Congress passed legislation providing ``HUBZone'' status for 5 years to military facilities closed through the BRAC process. Last week, the Defense Reauthorization bill passed by the Senate included language, authored by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, to extend HUBZone status for these facilities for an additional five years. The HUBZone program provides certain federal contracting preferences to small businesses located within a HUBZone. In addition to the BRAC- related HUBZones I have already mentioned, HUBZones are located in ``economically distressed communities,'' that suffer from low income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are currently 127 BRAC-related HUBZones in the United States. Unfortunately, for many of the military bases that have been closed, HUBZone status has not brought the benefits we had hoped for. One of the reasons is simple-- the law defines the geographic boundaries of a BRAC-related HUBZone to be the same as the boundaries of the base that was closed. When that is combined with the requirement that 35 percent of the employees of a qualifying business must live within the HUBZone, the problem is clear: very few people live on these former bases, so it is difficult or impossible for businesses to get the workers they need to meet the requirements of the HUBZone program. One of these HUBZones is located at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, in Brunswick, Maine. This facility closed in 2011, as a result of the 2005 BRAC round. When the Navy left, the host community lost more than 2400 military and civilian personnel. Brunswick and its neighbor, Topsham, have a combined population of just 22,000, so losing the Naval Air Station has had a significant economic impact on these communities. Because so few people actually live within the boundaries of the former base, its HUBZone designation does not provide any real assistance to these communities. My legislation would expand the geographic boundaries of BRAC-related HUBZones to include the town or county where the closed installation is located, or census tracts contiguous to the installation, up to a total population base of 50,000. This would provide a large enough pool of potential workers to enable qualifying businesses to locate within the HUBZone, and to help host communities overcome the loss of military installations closed through the BRAC process. The Association of Defense Communities has endorsed the concept of expanding BRAC-related HUBZones in this manner. In a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, the ADC noted how important it is that ``Congress restore its intent to support BRAC-impacted communities attracting small businesses to help build and strengthen their local economies.'' Steve Levesque, the Executive Director of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, or MRRA, which oversees the redevelopment of the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, also urges Congress to modify the HUBZone program. In a letter, Steve explained that BRAC facilities do not have the residential areas needed to support the 35 percent residency requirement for businesses located within the HUBZone. As a consequence, these businesses cannot ``realize the HUBZone benefits for BRAC'd installations as envisioned by Congress.'' This point was underscored in a letter from Heather Blease, an entrepreneur who is hoping to locate a new business at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station. Ms. Blease describes the HUBZone law as ``flawed,'' because the 35 percent residency requirement makes it impossible for businesses like hers to achieve HUBZone status. I ask my colleagues to consider the legislation I am offering today to help communities get back on their feet after the loss of a military installation closed through the BRAC process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.