Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation with my colleagues Senators Whitehouse, Warren, and Cowan that would create the Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park. Our legislation seeks to preserve the industrial, natural, and cultural heritage of the Blackstone Valley, assist local communities by providing economic development opportunities, and build upon the foundation of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. In 1793, Samuel Slater began the American Industrial Revolution in Rhode Island when he built his historic mill along the Blackstone River. Today, the mills and villages found throughout the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in Rhode Island and Massachusetts stand as witnesses to this important era of American history. Not only is the Blackstone Valley a window to our nation's past but it is also includes thousands of acres of pristine, undeveloped land and waterways that are home to a diverse ecosystem. The combined efforts of the National Park Service and Federal, State, and local officials in our or two states, along with dedicated volunteers, have rejuvenated the communities within the Corridor and renewed interest in the rich history of the Blackstone River and valley. This kind of economic and environmental revitalization is indicative of the tradition of the valley in its successful reinvention over the past two centuries. For example, the Ashton Mill in Cumberland is an excellent illustration of local redevelopment. With the designation of the National Heritage Corridor, the cleanup of the river, the creation of the state park, and the construction of the Blackstone River Bikeway, the property was restored for adaptive reuse as rental apartments. Once again, the mill and its village are a vital part of the greater Blackstone valley community. I have been pleased over the years to help support the preservation and renewed development of the Blackstone River Valley. In 2005, I cosponsored legislation with former Senator Lincoln Chafee, now our State's governor, requiring the completion of a Special Resource Study to determine which areas within the Corridor were of national significance and possibly suitable for inclusion in the National Park System. After extensive input from local stakeholders and historians, in 2011 the completed study recommended the creation of a new unit of the National Park System. The legislation I am reintroducing today with my colleagues from Rhode Island and Massachusetts seeks to establish the two-state partnership park described in the study, with sites including the Blackstone River and its tributaries, the Blackstone Canal, the historic district of Old Slater Mill in Pawtucket, the villages of Slatersville and Ashton in Rhode Island, the villages of Whitinsville and Hopedale in Massachusetts, and the Blackstone River State Park. The National Park Service would partner with the local coordinating entity of the surrounding Heritage Corridor, the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, Inc. That non-profit would then lead efforts with other regional and local groups to preserve the surrounding rural and agriculture landscape within the greater Blackstone River Valley. Creating a national historic park will enable us to safeguard our cultural heritage for future generations; improve the use and enjoyment of the area's resources, including outdoor education for young people; enhance opportunities for economic development; and increase protection of the most important and nationally significant cultural and natural resources of the Blackstone River Valley. I am proud that this park would be dedicated to my late colleague John H. Chafee, who worked tirelessly for many years, along with others in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, to protect and preserve the Blackstone River Valley. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation to establish the Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on each side?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator Lee concludes his remarks, I be recognized.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense. He comes to this job at an extraordinarily challenging time for the Department and for our Nation. Among the many issues he will confront, Senator Hagel will oversee the drawdown of our forces out of Afghanistan, the enhancement of our cyber defenses, and the management of various fiscal constraints on the defense budget. In fact, I cannot think of a more critical juncture of national security issues, budget issues, and technology issues, all coming together, facing the next Secretary of Defense. I have known Chuck for many years, and I know he is particularly well-suited to tackle these challenges. Chuck was born and raised in Nebraska, the oldest of four sons of a World War II veteran. Public service, military service is in that family's core. When his father died suddenly at the age of 39, Chuck quickly shouldered the responsibility of helping his mother raise his brothers. And when our Nation was in the midst of a bitter and divisive fight in Vietnam, he volunteered to fight, serving alongside his brother Tom. This was an era when there were many people who were looking for ways through deferments to avoid service, to avoid wearing the uniform of the United States. He was unusual in that he not only sought service, but he sought service in Vietnam alongside his brother. He rose to be an infantry sergeant, and both he and his brother were wounded twice, with each saving the other's life. In that experience as a combat infantryman, he knows, perhaps better than anyone who has been nominated for this office, the ultimate cost of our policies that are made here in Washington. When he returned home, Chuck used the GI bill to attend the University of Nebraska in Omaha, and after graduating from there, he went to Washington to work for a freshman Congressman from his home State. In 1980 President Reagan, recognizing his skill, his talent, his patriotism, and his devotion to the country, nominated him to be Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration. He ultimately left that post on a matter of principle. He thought there was inadequate support from that department for veterans suffering from exposure to Agent Orange. At that time, the effects of Agent Orange were being dismissed by some as nonconsequential, as something that was just a made-up malady by these veterans. Chuck knew differently, and later the science would prove him right. He continued to fight as he left the Veterans Administration, helping to ensure that these veterans who were physically affected by their service in Vietnam received compensation as the victims of Agent Orange. In that tenure as the Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration, he had the responsibility of running a large Federal department. So he is now bringing not only his service as a common infantryman but his service running a large department devoted to the veterans of these United States. That will serve him well as Secretary of Defense. Again, it makes him singularly if not uniquely qualified. But it doesn't stop there because he has extraordinary experience in the private sector. In the mid-1980s he cofounded Vanguard Cellular Systems, which became one of the largest independent cellular systems in the country. Again, someone from modest means with great imagination, after serving his country both as a soldier and as an administrator under the Reagan administration, went back and started a business and made it successful--so successful that he was able to devote himself to other public activities. He served as deputy commissioner general of the United States for the 1982 World's Fair. He was president and chief executive officer of the USO, the agency devoted to helping servicemembers and their families. Again, his commitment to the American soldier, sailor, airman, and marine has been consistent, constant, and unrelenting. Then he became chief operating officer of the 1990 Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations--the G7 summit--in Houston, the president of an investment bank, and he was on the board of some of the world's largest companies. So you already have at this juncture a soldier, a successful entrepreneur, and a successful Federal administrator. Then in 1996 he came to the Senate to represent the people of Nebraska. He was the first Republican Senator from Nebraska in a generation. We came here together. He came with all of these skills, and he added more skills, understanding the political process from the inside and from the outside that helped shaped national security policy, the budgets and the policies of the Department of Defense and every other Federal agency. During his time in the Senate as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees, he championed national security policies with the goal of ensuring that our military remains the strongest in the world. Senator Hagel believes in working closely with our allies and partners and that, in his words, ``a nation must strategically employ all instruments of its power--diplomatic, military, economic--to defend its interests.'' So he brings a broad, comprehensive approach to national security, which is essential for our next Secretary of Defense because so many of the national security challenges we face are not simply military; they are diplomatic, they are economic, and they are environmental. They require the kind of broad-ranging approach that he takes to national security policy. As he stated during his nomination hearing 2 weeks ago, he has one fundamental question he has asked himself on every vote he took while serving in the Senate: Is the policy worthy of the men and women we were sending into battle and surely to their deaths? Is this going to be worth the sacrifice, because there will be sacrifices. It is one thing to study the art of war in lecture halls and to speak profoundly as a pundit. It is something else to be in the mud, under fire, seeing others fall. I have not had that experience. I served 12 years in the U.S. Army, but very few people, very few people in this Chamber, very few people who would be considered for Secretary of Defense, have been under fire, have seen comrades fall, know that ultimately what we do here is borne by what those brave young Americans do across the globe. He knows it intellectually and viscerally. I know he will bring that perspective, that concern for our men and women in uniform, to every decision before him as Secretary of Defense. In this role, he will continue to focus our efforts on fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and throughout that region. We are facing a crucial turning point. In his State of the Union Address last night, the President announced his plan to further reduce our force levels in Afghanistan next year as the Afghan National Security Forces will take full responsibility for securing their nation. I think Senator Hagel is very well positioned to carry out this policy, to ensure it is done effectively, to ensure that our forces are protected and that we are able to help enable the Afghan forces to carry the burden to defend their country and provide stability. Senator Hagel will also lead the Department in preparing for emerging threats to our national security, such as attacks on our cyber infrastructure. We are at a critical point in our history, perhaps akin to the 1920s when air power first began to emerge as a credible military dimension, then later as space became a possible military dimension. Cyber is now a new dimension in warfare. We are at a similar juncture to the one when some of our colleagues in the 1920s were wondering how we use these contraptions that fly around the sky. But in a short period of time, air power made a profound difference on the world. The attack on Pearl Harbor was launched by aircraft from aircraft carriers, not by the bombardment of battleships and not by the landing of military forces. You can see the effect it had not only through World War II but in every conflict to today. We are at another critical juncture, and that is with respect to cyber security. How will we defend ourselves? What policies will we adopt to use this new technology to protect the United States and our allies? It will require integration across our government. It will require thoughtful, conscious deliberation. I believe he is prepared to do that and will do that very well. I am pleased that President Obama has just issued an Executive order that will improve coordination and information sharing with our industry partners so we can better protect our Nation's critical infrastructure, but there is more to be done, and I believe that in the context of a Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel can do it. Perhaps most challenging of all, Senator Hagel will lead the Department in a time of great fiscal constraints and uncertainty. As our Nation continues to find a path forward to rebound from the economic challenges of the last few years, there is an ever-growing pressure to reduce the size of the defense budget, which has nearly doubled over the past 10 years. But we must be very careful to do so in a way that eliminates unsustainable and unproductive costs without losing vital capabilities. That is a great challenge. As a result of the high operations tempo of our services, the multiple operations and deployments, all of our services are facing serious reset and recapitalization needs in terms of equipment and also significant efforts to help our military members and their families readjust, retrain, reequip, and prepare for a challenging future. Serious decisions will have to be made about the threats we face and as we anticipate new and emerging threats. Again, he is well prepared through his entire life of public service, military service, private service, administrative and business activity to confront this extraordinary range of challenges. A lot has been made about some comments Senator Hagel has made in the last years, going back 5, 7, 8, or more years. But I know, indeed, which was reflected in his testimony, that he did not seek out this position. President Obama chose to nominate Chuck Hagel because he knew of his record, of his service to our country. He knew of his incredible commitment to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. He knew about his experience in the private sector. He knew about his experience as a governmental leader. He knew there was an ability to rely upon his judgments, Senator Hagel's judgments, with confidence in times of crisis. I expect that the President of the United States is not going to turn to Chuck Hagel, particularly among crises, and ask him if can he quote verbatim what he said 10 years ago. He is going to say: What are my options? What is your advice? You know about war better than anyone. You know about military policy. You know about international security. You know about the interaction of diplomacy, economics, and environmental policy. Give me your judgment. I have to make a decision. I believe, reflecting what the Senator, my chairman, Carl Levin, has said, that in this difficult moment, the President of the United States needs a Secretary of Defense to provide that kind of perspective, and the men and women of the Department of Defense have to have the ability to have their voice heard decisively and definitively in those serious discussions, particularly about the deployment of military force. As I said, I am extremely confident he can do this. Let me also say I am impressed with those who have served our country in diplomatic and military roles who have endorsed Chuck Hagel strongly and enthusiastically. These endorsements are from men and women who have served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Among them are Bob Gates, William Cohen, Madeleine Albright, William Perry, Brent Scowcroft, Ryan Crocker, and Thomas Pickering. These men and women have devoted themselves to protecting the United States, and they have done it with extraordinary energy and effectiveness. This list of Secretaries of Defense will rank as some of the best we have ever had, and they are absolutely confident Chuck Hagel can and should do this job. There are Ambassadors on this list who have handled delicate and difficult issues involving international law. There are several Ambassadors who have been Ambassadors to the State of Israel and strongly support Senator Hagel. All of these individuals know him. They also know as well--if not better than I and many of my colleagues--of the threats, dangers, and opportunities which face this country, and they are strongly supporting Chuck Hagel. In fact, they have concluded in a letter that he is ``uniquely qualified to meet the challenges facing the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform.'' There has been a lot of discussion about Chuck Hagel's appreciation of the strong, important, and critical relationship between the United States and State of Israel. All I can say is I was so impressed by the comments of the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who was also the Ambassador to Washington, and who has met and dealt with Senator Hagel on a number of issues involving the relationship with the United States. The Deputy Foreign Minister said: ``I have met him many times, and he certainly regards Israel as a true and natural U.S. ally.'' In another quote he said: I know Hagel personally. . . . I think he believes in the relationship, in the natural partnership between Israel and the United States. Here is an Israeli patriot who understands and has spent a great deal of time devoted to the relationship of the United States and Israel. In his own words, he concludes that Chuck Hagel regards Israel as a true and natural U.S. ally and will act accordingly. He is a dedicated patriot. He is an individual who has served this country in so many different ways. I support his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Also, I think it is important to state that this nomination--as we have done with every Secretary of Defense for decades--deserves an up- or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. People may choose to cast a vote against him for many reasons, and that is the prerogative of that Senator. I strongly believe, if we want to stay true to the traditions of this body and to the presumption that the President should be allowed to at least have his nominee voted up or down, then we have to bring this vote to the floor of the Senate for an up-or-down vote as quickly as possible. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bipartisan bills pertaining to healthy housing, the Healthy Housing Council Act and the Title X Amendments Act. These bills seek to improve federal coordination of healthy housing efforts and better integrate healthy housing activities into the ongoing lead poisoning prevention work at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The presence of housing-related health hazards is often overlooked or is unable to be addressed, and yet these hazards are sometimes the cause of a variety of preventable diseases and conditions like cancer, lead poisoning, and asthma. While I have been working to address these hazards throughout my tenure in Congress, I was pleased that the Administration last week released its Strategy for Action to Advance Healthy Housing, a multi-department and agency effort to develop consensus-based criteria to address housing hazards that impact the health and habitation of children and families. This new Strategy for Action calls on Federal agencies to address barriers and disincentives to the delivery of services to improve housing conditions, particularly among low-income families with young children; replicate successful local healthy housing programs on a larger scale; and conduct more research into cost-effective advances in healthy housing programming. The Title X Amendments Act, S. 290, which I am introducing with Senators Johanns, Franken, and Boxer, and has been in the drafting stages for many months, responds to these calls for action. It would provide HUD with the necessary authority to continue to carry out healthy housing activities while protecting important ongoing lead remediation efforts, allow grantees to improve the conditions in zero- bedroom units, and streamline eligibility for assistance. These are simple, yet necessary reforms designed to improve and expand cost- effective services, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see them enacted. It is also vital that we continue the type of collaboration and coordination among Federal departments and agencies, like HUD, HHS, EPA, and CDC, that resulted in the Strategy for Action to Advance Healthy Homes. Indeed, there are many programs fragmented across multiple agencies that are responsible for addressing housing-related health hazards like lead and radon, and we should strive to improve the efficiency and efficacy of these efforts by ensuring that these agencies continue to work together. The Healthy Housing Council Act, S. 291, which Senator Johanns, Franken, and Boxer have also cosponsored, would establish an independent interagency Council on Healthy Housing in the executive branch in order to improve coordination, bring existing efforts out of their respective silos, and reduce duplication. The bill calls for the council to convene periodic meetings with experts in the public and private sectors to discuss ways to educate individuals and families on how to recognize housing-related health hazards and access the necessary services and preventive measures to combat these hazards. The council would also be required to hold biannual stakeholder meetings, maintain an updated website, and work to unify healthy housing data collection and maintenance. Our goal for these bills is to help reduce the more than 5.7 million households living in conditions with moderate or severe health hazards, 23 million additional homes with lead-based paint hazards, 14,000 unintentional injury and fire deaths every year that result from housing-related hazards, and 21,000 radon-associated lung cancer deaths every year. Indeed, these numbers contribute to increasing health care costs for individuals and families, as well as for federal, state, and local governments. Promoting low-cost measures to eliminate subpar housing can make a dramatic and meaningful difference in the lives of children and families and help reduce health care costs. I urge our colleagues to join in supporting these bipartisan bills.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bipartisan bills pertaining to healthy housing, the Healthy Housing Council Act and the Title X Amendments Act. These bills seek to improve federal coordination of healthy housing efforts and better integrate healthy housing activities into the ongoing lead poisoning prevention work at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The presence of housing-related health hazards is often overlooked or is unable to be addressed, and yet these hazards are sometimes the cause of a variety of preventable diseases and conditions like cancer, lead poisoning, and asthma. While I have been working to address these hazards throughout my tenure in Congress, I was pleased that the Administration last week released its Strategy for Action to Advance Healthy Housing, a multi-department and agency effort to develop consensus-based criteria to address housing hazards that impact the health and habitation of children and families. This new Strategy for Action calls on Federal agencies to address barriers and disincentives to the delivery of services to improve housing conditions, particularly among low-income families with young children; replicate successful local healthy housing programs on a larger scale; and conduct more research into cost-effective advances in healthy housing programming. The Title X Amendments Act, S. 290, which I am introducing with Senators Johanns, Franken, and Boxer, and has been in the drafting stages for many months, responds to these calls for action. It would provide HUD with the necessary authority to continue to carry out healthy housing activities while protecting important ongoing lead remediation efforts, allow grantees to improve the conditions in zero- bedroom units, and streamline eligibility for assistance. These are simple, yet necessary reforms designed to improve and expand cost- effective services, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see them enacted. It is also vital that we continue the type of collaboration and coordination among Federal departments and agencies, like HUD, HHS, EPA, and CDC, that resulted in the Strategy for Action to Advance Healthy Homes. Indeed, there are many programs fragmented across multiple agencies that are responsible for addressing housing-related health hazards like lead and radon, and we should strive to improve the efficiency and efficacy of these efforts by ensuring that these agencies continue to work together. The Healthy Housing Council Act, S. 291, which Senator Johanns, Franken, and Boxer have also cosponsored, would establish an independent interagency Council on Healthy Housing in the executive branch in order to improve coordination, bring existing efforts out of their respective silos, and reduce duplication. The bill calls for the council to convene periodic meetings with experts in the public and private sectors to discuss ways to educate individuals and families on how to recognize housing-related health hazards and access the necessary services and preventive measures to combat these hazards. The council would also be required to hold biannual stakeholder meetings, maintain an updated website, and work to unify healthy housing data collection and maintenance. Our goal for these bills is to help reduce the more than 5.7 million households living in conditions with moderate or severe health hazards, 23 million additional homes with lead-based paint hazards, 14,000 unintentional injury and fire deaths every year that result from housing-related hazards, and 21,000 radon-associated lung cancer deaths every year. Indeed, these numbers contribute to increasing health care costs for individuals and families, as well as for federal, state, and local governments. Promoting low-cost measures to eliminate subpar housing can make a dramatic and meaningful difference in the lives of children and families and help reduce health care costs. I urge our colleagues to join in supporting these bipartisan bills.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brian Huysman and Mellissa Duru, fellows in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for this session of the 113th Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Strengthening Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act or the SEC Penalties Act with my colleague, Senator Grassley. I am pleased that Senator Leahy has joined us in introducing the bill this year. The SEC Penalties Act will enhance the ability of securities regulators to protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Unfortunately, even after the financial crisis that crippled the economy, some on Wall Street continue to pursue profits at all costs, making the calculated decision to do wrong and move on. Without the consequence of meaningful penalties to impact decision- making, I fear we will continue to witness a disturbing culture of misconduct by some on Wall Street. The current regime for securities law violations limits by statute the amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, can fine an institution or individual. During hearings I held in 2011 in the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Banking Subcommittee, I found out how this limitation significantly ties the hands of the SEC in performing its enforcement duties. At that time, the agency had been criticized by a Federal judge for not obtaining a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major player in the financial crisis that ended up settling with the SEC in an amount that was a fraction of the cost the bank had inflicted on investors and the profits the bank had ultimately pocketed. The SEC explained that the low settlement amount was because it was statutorily prohibited from levying a larger penalty. The bill we are introducing seeks to substantially update and strengthen the SEC's civil penalties statute. This legislation should cause potential and current offenders to think twice before engaging in misconduct by increasing the statutory limits on civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of these penalties to the scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially raising the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities laws. Specifically, our bill would increase the per violation cap for the most egregious securities laws violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities. This will help ensure that the SEC's most severe, or ``tier three,'' penalties will help deter people from engaging in the most serious offenses, rather than have such wrongdoing be viewed as just the cost of doing business. Under existing law, the SEC can only penalize individual securities law violators a maximum of $150,000 per offense and institutions $725,000 per offense. Our bill also would allow penalties equal to three times the economic gain of the violator. It provides a new calculation method that includes the amount of associated investor losses as part of the penalty determination. This should allow the SEC to address situations where the actual economic gain to the violator is relatively small compared to the extent of the wrongdoing or the harm caused to investors. The SEC Penalties Act also addresses the disconcerting trend of repeat offenders on Wall Street. Our bill includes two statutory changes to substantially improve the ability of the SEC's enforcement program to ratchet up penalties for recidivists. One provision would allow the SEC to triple the applicable penalty cap for recidivists who, within the preceding five years, have been criminally convicted of securities fraud or been the subject of a judgment or order imposing monetary, equitable, or administrative relief in any action alleging SEC fraud. The other provision would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty if an individual or entity has violated an existing federal court injunction or bar imposed by the SEC. Many believe this approach would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. Finally, under the SEC Penalties Act, the penalty relief available in administrative proceedings would be the same as it is in district court. The nearly one-half of all U.S. households that own securities deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the tools it needs to go after fraudsters and the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The SEC Penalties Act will help by giving the SEC more tools to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street and protect investors, which in turn will improve transparency and increase confidence in our financial system. I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Strengthening Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act or the SEC Penalties Act with my colleague, Senator Grassley. I am pleased that Senator Leahy has joined us in introducing the bill this year. The SEC Penalties Act will enhance the ability of securities regulators to protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Unfortunately, even after the financial crisis that crippled the economy, some on Wall Street continue to pursue profits at all costs, making the calculated decision to do wrong and move on. Without the consequence of meaningful penalties to impact decision- making, I fear we will continue to witness a disturbing culture of misconduct by some on Wall Street. The current regime for securities law violations limits by statute the amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, can fine an institution or individual. During hearings I held in 2011 in the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Banking Subcommittee, I found out how this limitation significantly ties the hands of the SEC in performing its enforcement duties. At that time, the agency had been criticized by a Federal judge for not obtaining a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major player in the financial crisis that ended up settling with the SEC in an amount that was a fraction of the cost the bank had inflicted on investors and the profits the bank had ultimately pocketed. The SEC explained that the low settlement amount was because it was statutorily prohibited from levying a larger penalty. The bill we are introducing seeks to substantially update and strengthen the SEC's civil penalties statute. This legislation should cause potential and current offenders to think twice before engaging in misconduct by increasing the statutory limits on civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of these penalties to the scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially raising the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities laws. Specifically, our bill would increase the per violation cap for the most egregious securities laws violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities. This will help ensure that the SEC's most severe, or ``tier three,'' penalties will help deter people from engaging in the most serious offenses, rather than have such wrongdoing be viewed as just the cost of doing business. Under existing law, the SEC can only penalize individual securities law violators a maximum of $150,000 per offense and institutions $725,000 per offense. Our bill also would allow penalties equal to three times the economic gain of the violator. It provides a new calculation method that includes the amount of associated investor losses as part of the penalty determination. This should allow the SEC to address situations where the actual economic gain to the violator is relatively small compared to the extent of the wrongdoing or the harm caused to investors. The SEC Penalties Act also addresses the disconcerting trend of repeat offenders on Wall Street. Our bill includes two statutory changes to substantially improve the ability of the SEC's enforcement program to ratchet up penalties for recidivists. One provision would allow the SEC to triple the applicable penalty cap for recidivists who, within the preceding five years, have been criminally convicted of securities fraud or been the subject of a judgment or order imposing monetary, equitable, or administrative relief in any action alleging SEC fraud. The other provision would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty if an individual or entity has violated an existing federal court injunction or bar imposed by the SEC. Many believe this approach would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. Finally, under the SEC Penalties Act, the penalty relief available in administrative proceedings would be the same as it is in district court. The nearly one-half of all U.S. households that own securities deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the tools it needs to go after fraudsters and the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The SEC Penalties Act will help by giving the SEC more tools to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street and protect investors, which in turn will improve transparency and increase confidence in our financial system. I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, the Community Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, a survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in 2011, Rhode Island has the highest rate of serious mental illness among adults in the country. According to this survey, approximately 7.2 percent of adults aged 18 or older in my state have a serious mental illness, above the 4.6 percent national average. While too often the stigma of mental illness prevents individuals from seeking diagnosis and treatment, thankfully, states like Rhode Island have made strides in meeting this challenge. In Rhode Island, mental health parity laws have been on the books since 2001. Similarly, Rhode Island's Medicaid program, RIteCare, covers mental and behavioral health care for low-income children and families. Those who need this treatment must have access to it. Community Mental Health Centers play a vital role in helping individuals get the mental and behavioral health care that they need to lead healthier, more productive lives. In 2012, Community Mental Health Centers in Rhode Island treated approximately 45,000 individuals at over 1 million distinct encounters. Next year, the number of individuals treated by Community Mental Health Centers will likely increase, as over 50,000 Rhode Islanders gain access to health insurance. As more Americans across the country gain access to health insurance, these centers and other providers will see an increased caseload. Yet, many Community Mental Health Centers are in outdated and outmoded facilities that make if difficult to provide the optimal level of care. The Community Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act we are introducing today would support the necessary updates and expansions of some facilities, and the construction of entirely new facilities in other instances in order to meet the growing demand. I am pleased that this legislation has also been included in a broader bill, the Excellence in Mental Health Act, which I joined Senators Stabenow, Blunt, Boxer, Collins, Leahy and Rubio in introducing today, to make other updates to the way Community Mental Health Centers are reimbursed for services. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address the critical needs of our mental and behavioral health care delivery system.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, the Community Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, a survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in 2011, Rhode Island has the highest rate of serious mental illness among adults in the country. According to this survey, approximately 7.2 percent of adults aged 18 or older in my state have a serious mental illness, above the 4.6 percent national average. While too often the stigma of mental illness prevents individuals from seeking diagnosis and treatment, thankfully, states like Rhode Island have made strides in meeting this challenge. In Rhode Island, mental health parity laws have been on the books since 2001. Similarly, Rhode Island's Medicaid program, RIteCare, covers mental and behavioral health care for low-income children and families. Those who need this treatment must have access to it. Community Mental Health Centers play a vital role in helping individuals get the mental and behavioral health care that they need to lead healthier, more productive lives. In 2012, Community Mental Health Centers in Rhode Island treated approximately 45,000 individuals at over 1 million distinct encounters. Next year, the number of individuals treated by Community Mental Health Centers will likely increase, as over 50,000 Rhode Islanders gain access to health insurance. As more Americans across the country gain access to health insurance, these centers and other providers will see an increased caseload. Yet, many Community Mental Health Centers are in outdated and outmoded facilities that make if difficult to provide the optimal level of care. The Community Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act we are introducing today would support the necessary updates and expansions of some facilities, and the construction of entirely new facilities in other instances in order to meet the growing demand. I am pleased that this legislation has also been included in a broader bill, the Excellence in Mental Health Act, which I joined Senators Stabenow, Blunt, Boxer, Collins, Leahy and Rubio in introducing today, to make other updates to the way Community Mental Health Centers are reimbursed for services. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address the critical needs of our mental and behavioral health care delivery system.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, after so much time has passed due to the delay in consideration by the other body, it is critical that we move ahead to provide needed assistance to communities in the Northeast that were affected by Superstorm Sandy. I want to commend Chairwoman Mikulski, as well as our late colleague, Chairman Inouye, for their leadership in developing a bipartisan bill that would have provided critical assistance to respond to the hurricane and its aftermath, as well as other disasters. Indeed, the bill that passed the Senate last year was a superior product. It is regrettable that bill is not before us again today. The Senate bill would have delivered a significant amount of relief to communities in New York and New Jersey, while recognizing the substantial challenges faced by the other ten States that received major disaster declarations due to the storm. For example, the Senate bill included $810 million in water infrastructure grants to address the $2.8 billion in Sandy-related water infrastructure needs identified by the Environmental Protection Agency, allocating a minimum of 2 percent to each affected State. In addition, the Senate bill would have required the Department of Housing and Urban Development--HUD--to establish minimum allocations of Community Development Block Grant--CDBG--funds so that every State that was hit by Sandy would receive funding to address its impacts. Finally, the bill included $150 million to address a series of fisheries disasters that were declared in 2012. Regrettably, the House, after failing to bring a bill to the floor before the end of the 112th Congress, went in a different direction on these matters. The House bill cuts funding for water infrastructure by $210 million and limits funding to only two States, setting a dangerous precedent that Congress will provide assistance to some States that are affected by a disaster but not to others. With respect to CDBG funding, the House bill provides no minimum allocation and no assurance that States with significant damages from Sandy will receive the assistance they need. Paradoxically, the bill threatens to dilute assistance for Sandy by making the CDBG funding available for all disasters that occurred in 2011, 2012, and 2013 even though funding had been provided for some of these disasters in earlier appropriations laws. Finally, as fishermen from New York to Maine face dramatic catch reductions, the House bill strips the $150 million in fisheries disaster funding from the bill. While it is unfortunate that the House bill makes these changes, the people of the Northeast should not be forced to wait any longer for the help this bill does provide. This includes much needed funds for highway, port and harbor repairs, as well as repairs to national parks and wildlife refuges. Equally important is funding to begin the long- term analysis and work to help prevent this kind of damage from occurring again. Even as I continue to believe we should be able to do more, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Murkowski, Durbin, Collins, Tom Udall, Murray, Lautenberg, Blumenthal, Coons, Klobuchar, and Stabenow in the introduction of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization. This legislation is named for the son of Senator Gordon Smith, our former colleague, who took his own life at the young age of 22. After this tragedy, Senator Smith rallied support from members across the aisle and in both chambers to prevent other children from doing the same with passage of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act in 2004. Since then, it has retained its bipartisan support among Members of Congress and over 40 member organizations of the Mental Health Liaison Group. However, the recent horrific mass shooting in Newtown, CT shows that more work must be done to address the mental and behavioral health of children and young adults before they hurt themselves and others. Indeed, what is so clear now from this terrible tragedy is that we have young people who desperately need help. Parents also need help in identifying early warning signs of mental illness and accessing the appropriate treatment before it is too late. The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act authorizes critical resources for schools, elementary schools through college where children and young adults spend most of their time, to be able to reach at risk youth. Currently, this law supports 40 States, 38 tribes and tribal organizations, and 85 colleges and universities in their efforts to address mental health and prevent suicides among their youth. The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today would increase the authorized grant level to States, tribes, and college campuses for the implementation of proven programs and initiatives designed to address mental illness and reduce youth suicide. It will enable more schools to offer critical services to students and provide greater flexibility in the use of funds, particularly on college campuses. Suicide is now the second leading cause of death for adolescents and young adults age 10 to 24, up from the third leading cause of death in this population just a few years ago, and results in 4,800 lives lost each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Additionally, the CDC reports that 157,000 young adults in this age group are treated for self-inflicted injuries annually, often as the result of a failed suicide attempt. We can play a role in helping these children and their families. I am pleased that President Obama and Vice President Biden recognized this and included in their Plan to Protect Our Children and Our Communities by Reducing Gun Violence a recommendation to increase support for young adults ages 16 to 25, a population with high rates of mental illness, substance abuse, and suicide that is unlikely to seek help. Indeed, passing the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization is one way we can better address the mental health needs of this population. My colleague, Chairman Harkin, will be holding a hearing on the status of the mental health system in our country tomorrow. I look forward to continuing to work with him and others to act on the President's recommendations to improve mental and behavioral health care services, particularly for children and young people. This should be something that we do automatically when it comes to the welfare of our children but is even more urgently required in the wake of the terrible recent tragedies in Connecticut and elsewhere.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Murkowski, Durbin, Collins, Tom Udall, Murray, Lautenberg, Blumenthal, Coons, Klobuchar, and Stabenow in the introduction of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization. This legislation is named for the son of Senator Gordon Smith, our former colleague, who took his own life at the young age of 22. After this tragedy, Senator Smith rallied support from members across the aisle and in both chambers to prevent other children from doing the same with passage of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act in 2004. Since then, it has retained its bipartisan support among Members of Congress and over 40 member organizations of the Mental Health Liaison Group. However, the recent horrific mass shooting in Newtown, CT shows that more work must be done to address the mental and behavioral health of children and young adults before they hurt themselves and others. Indeed, what is so clear now from this terrible tragedy is that we have young people who desperately need help. Parents also need help in identifying early warning signs of mental illness and accessing the appropriate treatment before it is too late. The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act authorizes critical resources for schools, elementary schools through college where children and young adults spend most of their time, to be able to reach at risk youth. Currently, this law supports 40 States, 38 tribes and tribal organizations, and 85 colleges and universities in their efforts to address mental health and prevent suicides among their youth. The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today would increase the authorized grant level to States, tribes, and college campuses for the implementation of proven programs and initiatives designed to address mental illness and reduce youth suicide. It will enable more schools to offer critical services to students and provide greater flexibility in the use of funds, particularly on college campuses. Suicide is now the second leading cause of death for adolescents and young adults age 10 to 24, up from the third leading cause of death in this population just a few years ago, and results in 4,800 lives lost each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Additionally, the CDC reports that 157,000 young adults in this age group are treated for self-inflicted injuries annually, often as the result of a failed suicide attempt. We can play a role in helping these children and their families. I am pleased that President Obama and Vice President Biden recognized this and included in their Plan to Protect Our Children and Our Communities by Reducing Gun Violence a recommendation to increase support for young adults ages 16 to 25, a population with high rates of mental illness, substance abuse, and suicide that is unlikely to seek help. Indeed, passing the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization is one way we can better address the mental health needs of this population. My colleague, Chairman Harkin, will be holding a hearing on the status of the mental health system in our country tomorrow. I look forward to continuing to work with him and others to act on the President's recommendations to improve mental and behavioral health care services, particularly for children and young people. This should be something that we do automatically when it comes to the welfare of our children but is even more urgently required in the wake of the terrible recent tragedies in Connecticut and elsewhere.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to address the bill before us tonight. Despite the best efforts of Senate Democrats to strike a balanced and fair compromise--to avert tax hikes on Americans making less than a quarter of a million dollars, to avert the expiration of unemployment insurance, to avert the damaging automatic spending reductions--we instead have before us a package that is at best a half- measure. This is not how we should govern. However, the bill before us is better than the alternative facing millions of Americans. If we do not act, taxes for the middle-class will rise tomorrow, support for unemployed workers will lapse, Rhode Islanders will be hurt, and our economic recovery could suffer another Republican induced economic setback. Unless this bill is signed into law, starting January first, taxes rise on every American and hundreds of thousands middle-income Rhode Island families will see their taxes increase by an estimated $2,200 in 2013. Rhode Islanders numbering 37,000 would lose a tuition tax credit to help them pay for college and 103,000 Rhode Island families raising children would see an average tax increase of $1,000 because they would no longer qualify for the Child Tax Credit. The economy is tough enough for most Rhode Islanders, and they shouldn't be asked to absorb a hit like that due to the stubbornness of the other side of the aisle. This bill will also continue unemployment insurance for 2.1 million Americans and almost 9,000 Rhode Islanders. Without a continuation of unemployment insurance, millions of Americans actively seeking work will suffer a debilitating economic blow. People will lose their homes and be unable to put food on the table, as they lose one of the few lifelines they and their families have as they look for work in a tough economy. Neighborhood businesses would have taken a hit as well. An estimated $48 billion in economic activity will be sapped from our recovery and one of our most effective counter-cyclical economic policies would have been lost. It is a sad truth, but the middle-class tax cuts and unemployment insurance were being held hostage by my Republican colleagues in order to secure even more generous tax cuts for the wealthy. So at least with the permanent extension of tax cuts for the middle-class and a one-year continuation of unemployment, that immediate threat is gone. However, it is outrageous that this threat has been taken this far and that my Republican colleagues continue to demand a perpetuation of an unfair tax code that is tilted towards the wealthiest. So I remain committed to reforming the tax system so it is fair for all Americans. I remain committed to ending egregious loopholes that result in absurd and unfair results, like a private equity partner paying a lower tax rate than a janitor. I do want to stress that, despite Republican demands for big cuts in the social safety net, this bill protects Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid beneficiaries. Such beneficiary cuts would have made this package even more unbalanced and unfair. Unfortunately, it appears that Republicans are already planning to hold the debt ceiling hostage in order to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Today they will insist on additional tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, especially estate tax cuts, but then demand that we cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to cover these and other debts. I will work to prevent such callous efforts. I am deeply disappointed by the package before us today. I believe the White House should have stood firm on reducing the deficit by nearly $1 trillion and let income tax rates for those making over a quarter of a million dollars revert to Clinton-era levels. I am disappointed with Republican intransigence and the prospect of once again being on the brink of a manufactured economic catastrophe in order to secure tax preferences for millionaires and billionaires and attempting to pay for them by cutting Social Security or programs that benefit middle-income Americans. In the coming weeks, I hope Republicans will drop their attempts to cut the deficit on the backs of the middle-class and seniors, and instead work with us to craft a fair and balanced compromise that strengthens, not endangers, our economic recovery. Mr. President, I yield the floor. THE PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, major terrorist threats still exist, and it is critical that we do all we can to protect Americans, not only in terms of national security, but also in terms of civil liberties. In voting today to extend the FISA Amendments Act, FAA, for 5 years, I made a difficult judgment as there are still major outstanding concerns. In trying to address these concerns, I supported three amendments that would have made important improvements. The first was Senator Leahy's amendment, which sought to align the FAA sunset with the Patriot Act sunset so that both of these national security laws could be evaluated together prior to their expiration. Additionally, this amendment required a comprehensive review of FAA surveillance by the Inspector General of the intelligence community to address privacy concerns that have been raised. I also supported Senator Merkley's amendment, which would have increased transparency by requiring the Attorney General, in a manner consistent with the protection of national security, to make publicly available Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court decisions that include a significant construction or interpretation of the law. Finally, I voted in favor of Senator Wyden's amendment, which would have required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to Congress and the public on the impact of FAA on the privacy of American citizens, while preserving the President's ability to make necessary redactions. I am disappointed that these amendments, which all call for greater accountability and transparency, were unsuccessful. In 2008, I largely objected to the FAA because I had serious concerns about granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies for actions they may or may not have taken in response to administration requests that may or may not have been legal. Because these immunity provisions are not subject to a sunset, they are not at issue with today's vote. I ultimately decided to vote in favor of extending FAA for 5 years because, as I noted earlier, major threats still exist. However, I did so reluctantly. We should have considered an FAA extension months ago without the threat of FAA expiration in mere days. Protecting Americans means that we must balance ensuring our national security with preserving our civil liberties, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that this balance is struck.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. The Senator is correct. Coming from a State that received a major disaster declaration due to the damage it sustained in Hurricane Sandy, including damage to the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, I recognize the importance of providing funding for projects in States impacted by the storm. The funds provided in this bill will be used in support of additional recovery activities directly related to the hurricane or to fund longer-term restoration activities for areas directly affected by Hurricane Sandy. The bill provides flexibility so that the Department can transfer the funds to any of its programs to fund the highest priority needs in these specific disaster areas. I expect these funds to be of great assistance to states like ours which were affected by this devastating storm.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for Hurricane Sandy. This is a critically important bill for the States that were affected by this storm--not only New York and New Jersey, which saw almost unimaginable devastation and loss of life, but States like my home State of Rhode Island, which experienced significant damage. There has been a long tradition in the Senate in working together to respond to major disasters in our States. The Appropriations Committee has been an important venue for the kind of bipartisan cooperation that has made these efforts possible. In large part that has been the result of the efforts of members like our late-Chairman Dan Inouye who created, by his example, an environment of comity and respect. That has been the unique ethos of our committee. Under the leadership of our new chairwoman, Senator Mikulski, it will continue. As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, I also want to take a moment to talk about the $1.45 billion included in the bill for environmental recovery and restoration needs. We must fund recovery efforts and rebuild public facilities that were damaged. But we also need to look ahead to projects that will allow our communities and our public lands to withstand future storms and natural disasters. I am pleased that the Interior section of this bill addresses both needs. The bill contains $435 million in essential funding to rebuild national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and other public facilities damaged by Hurricane Sandy. I particularly want to call attention to the $348 million included to fund immediate construction needs at more than 25 Park Service units that were damaged during the storm. These funds will help the Park Service take necessary steps to reopen a number of heavily visited units to the public--including the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, which suffered extensive damage during the storm. We need to get this work started now so that we can get these parks reopened. And because the need is so great--the amount requested by the President is nearly five times the annual line-item construction budget--it's imperative that we give the service the funds in this supplemental as soon as possible. I also want to note that the bill also provides $78 million for immediate reconstruction and recovery needs for the more than 30 wildlife refuges that also sustained tremendous damage during the storm. These funds will be used for emergency stabilization needs, to replace or reconstruct facilities, roads, and trails, and to fund improvements needed to lessen anticipated damage from future storms. The bill also provides $810 million for the EPA State Revolving Fund programs, including $700 million for clean water needs and $110 million for drinking water needs, for States that faced the greatest impact from Hurricane Sandy. These funds will complement funds from other Federal agencies and provide targeted funding to upgrade water infrastructure to protect against future flooding, storm damage, and other natural disasters. Already, there is a huge estimated need for these funds. In fact, EPA estimates that there are approximately 700 drinking water and wastewater facilities in States affected by Sandy that need to make infrastructure upgrades that will make them less susceptible to flooding and extreme weather events. This is exactly the kind of work that needs to be undertaken so that we can get ahead of the curve and prepare for the next storm or natural disaster. I understand that there are some who believe that some of these investments do not constitute an emergency, but as those who lived in the path of storms from Andrew to Katrina to Sandy can attest, there is no time to waste or wait. I hope that this chamber can move swiftly to pass this supplemental appropriations bill. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, at this time, I wish to take a few minutes to salute my colleagues who are retiring at the end of this year with the conclusion of the 112th Congress: Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Jim Webb of Virginia. They have all worked ceaselessly to give their constituents the best representation and give the country the benefit of their views, their wisdom, and their experience. They are men and women who are committed to the Nation, and they have every day in different ways contributed to this Senate and to our great country. I wish to thank them personally for their service, and, in so many cases, their personal kindness to me; for listening to my points and for, together, hopefully, serving this Senate and this Nation in a more positive and progressive way. In particular, let me say a few words about some of the Members with whom I have had the privilege to work more closely. Senator Daniel Akaka, like his colleague, the late and revered Senator Daniel Inouye, proudly served our Nation during World War II. I am stepping into the huge shoes of Danny Akaka as the cochair of the Army Caucus. From one soldier to another, I salute him. He has also been an extraordinarily forceful advocate not just for active-duty personnel but for veterans and, of course, for the men and women of his beloved Hawaii. Jeff Bingaman has distinguished himself through his work on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to improve our Nation's energy policy, particularly improving our energy efficiency. He has the vision and knowledge which he has displayed so many times to deal with the difficult issues that face us with respect to the appropriate use of energy. He has also focused on some of the greatest challenges facing our educational system, including preventing dropouts and promoting the use of education technology. Scott Brown has drawn from his over 30 years of experience in the National Guard to advocate for our servicemembers. I am particularly pleased we were able to work together to create the new Office of Service Member Affairs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I have had the honor of serving with Kay Bailey Hutchison on the West Point Board of Visitors, and I am also grateful that she joined with me on a bill to improve care for children who survive cancer. Joe Lieberman and I have worked many hours to protect the submarine industrial base that is crucial not only to our strategic posture but also to our local economies. He has done it with great vision and great energy, and I thank him for that. Richard Lugar is one of the most decent and thoughtful individuals ever to serve in this body. We will miss his wisdom and his voice, particularly on nuclear nonproliferation and arms control. I am also pleased to have joined him on so many other issues, and he leaves an extraordinary mark on this institution. I have also had the privilege to work closely with another Member of this body, my colleague and friend, Olympia Snowe of Maine. Her willingness to reach across the partisan divide to advance legislation to benefit the Nation and the Senate and her State of Maine is, in my view, legendary. I was pleased to work with her when it came to supporting our fishermen and lobstermen, who are critical to our local economies. She and I have worked closely together on a host of other issues, including supporting strong investments in LIHEAP and our Nation's libraries. Jim Webb, a decorated combat veteran, is someone whose love for this Nation was manifested very early, as he led marines in combat in Vietnam. His extraordinary courage is only matched by his quiet demeanor and his calm sense of confidence that project outward in every different capacity. Of course, he has taken it upon himself to make sure we do not forget our veterans. He was the architect of the post-9/11 GI bill and, in doing so, he has enriched the lives of so many who were willing to risk their lives for this Nation. I, again, salute him for all he has done. Kent Conrad is an extraordinary budget chairman. No one knows more about the intricacies of the budget and no one brings to that very difficult debate more of an innate sense of fairness and decency than Kent Conrad. I could go on with all of my colleagues, just thanking them for their friendship, for their camaraderie, and for their commitment to the Nation and the Senate. As they depart, they have left an extraordinary legacy. Now it is our responsibility to carry on in so many different ways, and I hope we measure up to what they have done. If we do, then we can go forward confidently. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to touch on a topic that was discussed by many of my colleagues, including Senator Whitehouse; and that is the fisheries disaster in the Northeast, which was declared by the Secretary of Commerce in 2012. There is language and support in the supplemental appropriations bill to help our fishing industry in the Northeast that has been affected by this disaster in the areas of New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. These fishermen have been for years under a painful regime of restricted fishing so that the stock could be replenished. Despite their efforts, some of the fishing stock has not responded, leading to a declaration of a fisheries disaster by the Secretary of Commerce. The funding that is included in the supplemental applies to New England, but it also helps Alaska and Mississippi. I appreciate very much the fact that Senator Mikulski is working to include this funding in the bill. She is an extraordinary leader in our Senate, an extraordinary and compassionate leader when it comes to issues affecting the fishing industry, not just in her home area of the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic but as far away as Alaska and Rhode Island and Maine. I would hope we could move to help these fishermen get on with their lives with this assistance. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to join Senator Whitehouse in commending the Presiding Officer for his underlying legislation, along with Senator Isakson, and commend my colleague and friend, Senator Whitehouse, for his leadership on this issue, and begin where he left off, which is, in the wake of the unfathomable tragedy in Newtown, CT, the idea that we do not need more trained child psychiatrists and child counselors is difficult to understand. We do need them. The legislation the Senator from Pennsylvania has introduced would help children's hospitals across the Nation and we are strongly behind it. But we also want to make help available to children's psychiatric hospitals, such as Bradley Hospital in Rhode Island. One of the facts that emerged from the terrible tragedy in Newtown is that we have young people who need help, desperately need help, and their parents need help--help to recognize problems, help to not only diagnose them but treat them, and we do not have a sufficient number of trained child psychiatrists in the country to do that. This legislation, this amendment, would allow us to do that. It adds no cost, as Senator Whitehouse indicated, and I think it should be something that we would do almost automatically when it comes to the welfare of our children, but particularly in the wake of the terrible tragedy in Connecticut. So I wanted to be here to lend my support to the underlying efforts of the Senator from Pennsylvania and to the specific efforts of my colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Dr. Gregory Fritz, who is the academic director of the residency program at Bradley Hospital, be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have a comment on an additional issue but would only do so if the Senator from Rhode Island would allow.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise, as so many of my colleagues have, to mourn and pay tribute to Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. He was a giant of the Senate. He was an individual whose courage, whose compassion, and whose commitment to this country has never been exceeded by anyone who served here--indeed, by any American I can think of. A few years ago, I was asked to introduce the Senator at an event. I wrote down some points on a card that I kept on my desk, and will forever keep on my desk: Second Lieutenant Daniel K. Inouye, E Company, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, San Terenzo, Italy, April 21, 1945. That was the day he was wounded leading his platoon against an enemy pillbox, the day for which he would be ultimately awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions. Then I have another date: May 8, 1945. That was VE Day, the end of the war. Seventeen days before the end of the war, when Berlin was encircled and collapsing, when American forces were rushing and the end was clear, and indeed every soldier recognized that the war was coming to an end, Senator Inouye didn't stop serving, didn't stop sacrificing, didn't stop giving his all to protect his soldiers and accomplish his mission. Indeed, that spirit of never giving up, of never failing to do his duty, animated his service in the Senate, animated his service to this country, and to the State of Hawaii. At the time I gave these remarks, he was 1 of 90 living holders of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Today we mourn his passing, his contributions to Hawaii, his contributions to this Senate which he held in the highest esteem and which he personified so grandly. I think one of the factors that led him to a career in public service and led him to such distinguished service was the recognition--not theoretically but practically--that despite his great suffering and sacrifice, he was lucky because there were many other young men and women who perished in that war and in subsequent wars; that he had sacrificed much but had not given his life, although he very nearly gave his life. At the outset of the war, the Librarian of Congress Archibald MacLeish, wrote: They say, We were young. We have died. Remember us. They say, We have done what we could but until it is finished it is not done. They say, We have given our lives but until it is finished no one can know what our lives gave. They say, Our deaths are not ours: they are yours: they will mean what you make them. They say, Whether our lives and our deaths were for peace and a new hope or for nothing we cannot say: it is you who must say this. In everything Dan Inouye did, he spoke for those soldiers. He gave their lives meaning by his selfless service and sacrifice to this Nation. He gave it every day by making this place--this country--live up to its highest ideals, a place of opportunity for all, a place of fairness and decency. He did it as few did. So those voices that were stilled in 1945, and in the Korean War and in the war in Vietnam and subsequent wars, always had a voice here; and it wasn't just words, it was actions. His life gave meaning, and that might be one of the highest achievements anyone can reach in this life. We all know his extraordinary service in so many different ways. We know also, in one of the great coincidences, three young men were in an Army hospital in Michigan: Dan Inouye, Phil Hart, and Bob Dole, American heroes; and that later they would come to this Senate and serve with distinction. I think it was particularly meaningful that just a few days ago Senator Robert Dole--another great American--was on the floor of this Senate, still serving, still emblematic of the ``greatest generation.'' We will miss Senator Inouye. There are few words and not enough eloquence to describe the loss. I, too, particularly want to thank and extend my condolences to his wife Irene, to his son Ken, to his daughter-in-law Jessica, to his granddaughter Maggie, and to his stepdaughter Jennifer Hirano. They have lost more than any of us because they have lost a husband, a father, and a grandfather. Let me just conclude with the words uttered centuries ago by Thucydides: The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it. Dan Inouye knew the dangers. Dan Inouye knew that the glory was fleeting, and in fact combat wasn't particularly glorious at all. But he knew it was honorable to serve. He knew it was honorable to sacrifice for his soldiers and for his comrades. He knew it was honorable and decent to serve his State and his Nation, and he never failed to go forth to meet the challenges of his time. Now it is our time. Now we must give words and meaning to the voices that have been stilled in the service to this Nation. One of those giants and one of those powerful voices was Senator Daniel Inouye. The test will be whether we can measure up to what he did, and I hope for the sake of this country we can.