To change the enactment date.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is the substitute now pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Amendment No. 3338 Withdrawn

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I withdraw the pending substitute amendment
No. 3338.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right and the amendment
is withdrawn.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished majority
leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the manager of
this

[[Page S8195]]

bill, Senator Leahy. He and I have worked together on the
Appropriations Committee for more than a quarter of a century.

Amendment No. 3395

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

Mr. President, I have a substitute amendment at the desk and I ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 3395.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')

Amendment No. 3396 to Amendment No. 3395

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a first-degree amendment to the
substitute which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 3396 to amendment No. 3395.

The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following new section:

SEC. __.

This Act shall become effective 7 days after enactment.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 3397 to Amendment No. 3396

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the
desk, and I ask for it to be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 3397 to amendment No. 3396.

The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``7 days'' and insert ``6 days''.

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion to the substitute at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute
amendment No. 3395 to H.R. 1, an act making appropriations
for the Department of Defense and other departments and
agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2011.
Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Benjamin L. Cardin, Mark
Begich, Joe Manchin III, Tom Harkin, Jeff Bingaman,
Mary Landrieu, Christopher A. Coons, Amy Klobuchar,
Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Jack Reed, Kirsten E.
Gillibrand, Tom Udall, Bernard Sanders, Sheldon
Whitehouse.

Amendment No. 3398

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a first-degree amendment to the text
of the language proposed to be stricken which is at the desk, and I ask
it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 3398 to the language proposed to be stricken by
amendment No. 3395.

The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following new section:

SEC. XXXXXXXXX

This Act shall become effective 5 days after enactment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 3399 to Amendment No. 3398

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment which is at
the desk, and I ask for it to be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 3399 to amendment No. 3398.

The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``5 days'' and insert ``4 days''.

Motion To Commit With Amendment No. 3400

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to commit the bill, H.R. 1, to the
Appropriations Committee, with instructions that are at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to commit the
bill, H.R. 1, to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment
numbered 3400.

The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following new section:

SEC. ___.

This Act shall become effective 3 days after enactment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 3401

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a first-degree amendment to the
instructions at the desk, and I ask the Chair to have that reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 3401 to the instructions of the motion to commit
H.R. 1.

The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``2 days''.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 3402 to Amendment No. 3401

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the
desk, and I ask for it to be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 3402 to amendment No. 3401.

The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``2 days'' and insert ``1 day''.

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion to the underlying
bill at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 1, an act
making appropriations for the Department of Defense and other
departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2011.
Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Benjamin L. Cardin, Mark
Begich, Joe Manchin III, Tom Harkin, Jeff Bingaman,
Mary Landrieu, Christopher A. Coons, Amy Klobuchar,
Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Jack Reed, Kirsten E.
Gillibrand, Tom Udall, Bernard Sanders, Sheldon
Whitehouse.

Flood Control

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy
with my friend Senator Leahy, who is managing the Senate Supplemental
Appropriations bill. The bill includes funding and language provisions
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that will help construct and
improve crucial flood control projects in areas impacted by Hurricane
Sandy, including along the Jersey Shore. Mitigation projects along the
coast are critical to preventing future damage, and that's why I am
pleased that language is included in the bill to authorize projects for
construction that are currently in the study phase. This provision will
expedite flood control efforts in flood-prone areas impacted by
Hurricane Sandy, and I am pleased Senator Leahy agrees this is a
valuable initiative.
Mr. LEAHY. I am pleased to work with Senator Lautenberg on this

[[Page S8196]]

issue. New Jersey, New York, and other States throughout the region
were devastated by Hurricane Sandy. In particular, flood-prone areas
and the coastline experienced severe damage. That is why the
Supplemental Appropriations bill includes funding and language to
improve damaged projects, construct new projects to prevent future
damage, and to authorize projects in the study phase for construction,
provided that the Corps of Engineers determines doing so would cost-
effectively reduce flood and storm damage risks.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Requiring the Corps of Engineers to determine whether
potential projects in affected areas can cost-effectively reduce flood
and storm damage risks before receiving construction authorization is a
valuable goal. However, Hurricane Sandy changed the conditions of many
projects, which could increase the final cost of those projects. Also,
many homes and businesses in flood-prone areas were destroyed. This
could lead to a decrease in the value of property protected by proposed
projects. Therefore, the combined impact of increased project costs and
a reduction in the value of property that would be protected by planned
flood control infrastructure could result in a calculation that shows a
higher project cost with lower economic benefits. Does the Senator
agree that the language regarding the cost-effectiveness of flood and
storm damage efforts under consideration for construction authorization
is not intended to disqualify projects that could have increased costs
and decreased economic benefits as a result of Hurricane Sandy?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes. The language does not intend for the Corps of
Engineers to disqualify studies under consideration for construction
authorization based on increased costs and decreased economic benefits
as a result of Hurricane Sandy. In addition, the term ``cost-
effectiveness'' does not refer to the benefit to cost ratio typically
used by the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank Senator Leahy, along with Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, who
has jurisdiction over the Corps, for their work on this vital bill,
which would help states affected by Hurricane Sandy recover and prepare
for future storms. It includes important language to allow projects in
the study phase to be constructed and does not intend to disqualify
projects with increased costs and decreased economic benefits as a
result of Hurricane Sandy. Given that this process is different than
standard practice, does the Senator agree that the Corps of Engineers
should submit a report to Congress to explain the process that will be
implemented?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes. The Corps is directed to submit a report to the
Committee on Appropriations on its proposed process for determining
cost-effectiveness, in accordance with the aforementioned intentions,
no later than 45 days following enactment of this Act.

Great Lakes Dredging Funding

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to bring attention to a significant
disaster situation in the Great Lakes region. As a result of a deadly
combination of the Midwest drought and an unusually warm winter, the
Great Lakes are at near record low water levels. The Army Corps of
Engineers reports that Lakes Michigan and Huron are more than 2 feet
below their long-term average. Lake Superior is more than 1 foot below
its long-term average. Keith Kompoltowicz, chief of watershed hydrology
for the Army Corps of Engineers, has said regarding the Great Lakes
water levels, ``There is a good chance of setting record lows.'' The
situation in the Great Lakes has resulted in freighters getting stuck
in channels, ships carrying reduced loads leading to millions of
dollars in losses, harbors closing or being threatened with closure,
and so-called Harbors of Refuge not being able to provide shelter to
boaters in distress.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I share my colleague's deep concern with
the low water levels in the Great Lakes. This is, without a doubt, a
disaster for the communities who rely on our harbors and waterways. The
Great Lakes provide jobs for more than 800,000 Michigan residents, and
low water levels in the lakes are threatening those jobs. The Great
Lakes support a $7 billion fishing industry, and a $16 billion
recreational boating industry. However, weather disasters this year
have resulted in water levels in the Great Lakes near record lows.
Normally we count on spring rains and snow melt-off to raise the level
of the lakes. But this spring we saw only a 4 inch rise in Lake
Michigan and Lake Huron, one-third of the normal level. And for the
first time on record, there was no spring rise in levels of Lake St.
Clair and Lake Erie. Due in part to the summer heat wave, at the height
of which every single one of Michigan's 83 counties was declared a
disaster area, 2012 was also marked by evaporation rates over 50
percent above average for the 4 largest lakes. There is no question
that the shipping channels and harbors of the Great Lakes are in
distress. We cannot reverse the drought, but we can support the
dredging projects necessary to ensure that the 139 Federal harbors and
waterways in the Great Lakes region can continue to serve our Nation's
economy.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. While the water levels are at historic lows in
Lakes Michigan and Huron, Lake Erie, which my State borders, also has
water levels below its long-term average. Because the Great Lakes
navigational system is interconnected, with shipments often moving from
Duluth to Cleveland to Buffalo, a problem in one harbor can have
negative impacts across all of the 60 commercial projects in the Great
Lakes system. The light-loading of ships has repercussions across our
transportation system with very real impacts on jobs and our
manufacturing and agricultural sectors. This year's drought across
Ohio, Michigan, and other parts of the upper-Midwest has been nothing
short of a natural disaster.
Mr. LEVIN. In addition to response, recovery and mitigation related
to Hurricane Sandy damage, I also understand this bill provides funds
to help respond to other natural disasters. I would ask the manager of
the bill, Senator Leahy, is that correct?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes, that is correct. The Supplemental Appropriations bill
includes some funding related to natural disasters other than Hurricane
Sandy.
Mr. LEVIN. Would the near-historic low water levels of the Great
Lakes caused by drought and mild winters be considered a natural
disaster?
Mr. LEAHY. The bill does not define ``natural disaster,'' but the
near record water level lows in the Great Lakes caused by drought and
unusually warm weather leading to increased evaporation are certainly
contributing to significant drought-like consequences at Great Lakes
ports and harbors.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. I am pleased the bill includes $821
million to dredge federal navigation channels and repair damage to
Corps projects nationwide related to natural disasters. Would
federally-authorized Great Lakes harbors and channels be eligible for
that funding?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes. The funding is tied to estimates of natural disaster
damages relayed to Congress by the Corps, however, the funding is not
earmarked to specific projects. The Corps utilizes this funding to
restore essential project functions based on the Corps' priority of the
damages. In that context, Great Lakes ports and harbors would be
eligible for the funding.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for his clarification. The Army Corps
of Engineers estimates that $35 million could be utilized in operations
and maintenance funding just to restore minimum operations in the Great
Lakes system. I am hopeful that $35 million of the $821 million for
dredging will be directed to Great Lakes projects. I thank the Senator
for his work on this important legislation, and I thank my friends for
their support in addressing the low water level impacts on the Great
Lakes navigational system through this supplemental appropriations
bill.

____________________