FAA Sunsets Extension Act of 2012

Madam President, I am going to truncate my remarks to 5 minutes. I came to speak on the supplemental and the great needs in the Northeast.

Generally, because I know there are other Senators who have other items to discuss, I will come back at a later time for extended remarks. I wanted to come to the floor just to say to all of my colleagues that I hope we can be patient with one another, supportive of the tragedy that is unfolding in the Northeast related to Superstorm Sandy, which I think has caused greater destruction than maybe many people in this Chamber and this Capitol realize.

While Katrina--something that I am very familiar with, a storm that hit us over 7 years ago, in August of 2005--received headline after headline after headline, week after week after week, television station after television station, Superstorm Sandy, because it hit a more dense area that is potentially not as--I don't know--as camera friendly, and maybe because of some of the other things that have subsequently happened, the terrible shooting and other issues in the country, I am not sure the public quite understands how devastating this storm has been for a very important part of our country. I will try to frame it with just a few statistics that might grab people.

In my State, when Katrina hit, in one weekend we lost 18,000 small businesses. To us, it was a nightmare. We have about 1.2 million people in our metropolitan area and 18,000 small businesses represented a tremendous loss. But the businesses that have been lost in New York and New Jersey exceed 300,000. As to homes, we have lost 275,000 homes along the gulf coast. In New York alone we have lost over 350,000 homes, and those numbers are still coming in for New Jersey.

While it is not on the television every night, and CNN is not filming from New York or from New Jersey or any of these communities on a nightly basis like they did from New Orleans and the gulf coast for weeks and weeks, it would be wrong for us in this Congress to underestimate the damage that has been caused to this area.

One thing I wanted to say today is--and I will come back for extended remarks--it is not only the resources that we need to get to this region, $60 billion is not all that the region requested. They requested $90 billion and had good justification for asking for that. The President trimmed back those responses to get to the real core of what was needed for family, for flood insurance, for the Corps of Engineers, for mitigation, for transportation, so that the recovery could get underway in a very balanced and robust way.

It is not all that the region wanted, but it is a large enough package, Madam President, to give hope to people in New Jersey and New York, and, yes, Connecticut, Maryland, and a few other places that were hard hit as well. Then they could begin making plans for recovery.

There are whole towns, portions of towns, communities. I was able to actually get on the ground with Senator Menendez and visit one of the Long Beach communities in New Jersey--I think it was the Long Beach community there--and saw just miles and miles and miles of shuttered businesses, one after another, along that Jersey shore. I just saw a small portion of it that day. It goes on for miles and miles and miles.

Now, just for the next minute or two, yes; insurance is going to cover some of these losses, but insurance is not going to cover it all. In the bill that we are about to talk about, and are talking about now, there is an authorization for $9 billion more for flood insurance. If we don't authorize this $9 billion, which is part of the 60, there will not be flood insurance claims paid to people who have paid into the flood insurance program. They will not be able to get out their legitimate claims. So that is one of the important reasons we should pass the supplemental.

In the final 30 seconds I have--and I will come back and speak longer--there is the mitigation part of this. After Katrina, one of the smartest things we did was to send to the communities on the gulf coast, to mitigate against future storm damage--it was about $14 billion total for several of our large Corps projects. It was a lot of money. People grumbled and complained, but, you know what. They sent it.

The Corps built the project on time and underbudget, and in this last storm that we had, Isaac, which just hit, which people don't even remember--we had a storm in August, the same date as Katrina--there wasn't a drop of water in Orleans Parish or Jefferson Parish except for lower parts of Jefferson, not even in Saint Bernard. Why? Because the mitigation worked.

So the two points I want to make and then, in turn, yield to Senator McCain and others who are on the floor, are this bill is not everything that was requested, but it is robust enough to do the job. No. 2, it has tools in it to help the recovery move faster, more streamlined, more efficiently. And, No. 3, mitigation works.

So as this debate goes on, I know some people are getting hardened hearts about this bill already, but I am asking you to understand that in a catastrophic disaster such as this, regular process won't work, regular appropriations won't work. Supplemental disaster funding is essential, and not just for FEMA but for transportation, for the Corps, et cetera.

I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership at a very difficult time. I will come back and speak more about this later, but I wanted to get some of these statements in the Record as we begin this debate, and I will come back and talk more about the Homeland Security portion of this bill.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, Senator Leahy has been handling this bill for the last 24 hours or so, and I came to the floor earlier to speak about the supplemental. I gave truncated remarks because Senator McCain had personal remarks to make on behalf of his colleague Senator Kyl. At this time I would like to reengage in the debate regarding the supplemental for just a few minutes.

I know this day has been back and forth with personal tributes on the floor as well as the debate on the supplemental for Superstorm Sandy. I have come to the floor specifically as chair of the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, which does have jurisdiction over FEMA, and to say a couple of words about this piece of the supplemental.

I understand that other chairs of the Appropriations Committee have come down to talk. I know there have been discussions with regard to the Corps of Engineers mitigation issues and fishery issues in this bill, which is the subject of Senator Mikulski's committee. Senators have talked about housing and urban development, community block grants--that is in HUD--and transportation, which is under the jurisdiction of Senator Murray's committee.

I have been pleased and honored to be the chair of the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee for several years now. I am proud we are actually seeing the benefits today of the reforms that were put in place as our first responders respond to literally the worst disaster to hit the Northeast in 50 years.

I wish to address a few things and clarify some numbers for the record. The fact that Hurricane Sandy is not on the news every night and CNN is not broadcasting from the shores of New York and New Jersey does not mean it is over. The news coverage happened for a few days, and then they went to other pressing issues of the day. As new challenges arise, it is natural that the attention of the press will be diverted. The problem is that it may be natural, but it is not necessarily good for people who have lost their homes and their businesses. Without quick action from Congress and robust, definitive, comprehensive support from the Federal Government, these individuals and communities will not be able to recover.

As the Senator from one of the States hardest hit in recent memory from a natural disaster, I am able to testify as an eyewitness to what happened in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and what is possible in the recovery for Hurricane Sandy.

It has been over 7 weeks since Hurricane Sandy claimed the lives of more than 130 Americans and destroyed--and I want to correct the record--340,000 homes and 200,000 businesses. Just to make a comparison, as a result of Hurricane Katrina, which primarily hit south Louisiana and Mississippi, we lost 275,000 homes. This is 340,000 homes that have been destroyed. That is more than Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And 200,000 businesses is substantially more businesses that were lost compared to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which was about 18,000 businesses. Part of it is due to this area being more densely populated.

The storm was broader in its width and more intense in certain areas. It was broader geographically, and the area is so densely populated. I think it is hard for people from less populated areas of the country to understand how much destruction can be leveled in a certain area. More than 8.5 million families were left without power, heat, or running water. Many of those families have power, heat, and running water now, although not all.

Just this week, I picked up the phone to call my friend Marc Moriel, president of the Urban League. The Presiding Officer knows him very well. He

was a former mayor of New Orleans. The cell phone wasn't answered. Finally, through a couple of connections, I got through to him. Their offices are in New York.

He said: Mary, I am sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner. Our phones are still out from Sandy.

They have not lost their home, but they were out of their home for some time.

As I said before, just because it is not on the news does not mean it is over. There are thousands of small businesses, nonprofits, individuals who, without this package of hope and support, are not going to get back to business to help get their communities back and help get our economy running again. The Urban League is just one example. There are still individuals without phone service, power, et cetera.

It is important for us to understand that insurance proceeds are not going to be enough. Even with a well-insured population, it is not going to be enough to handle the catastrophe that befell this particular area of our country just a few weeks ago.

Over 500,000 people registered for temporary housing and individual assistance. FEMA provided over 14 million meals, over 16 million liters of water, 1.6 million blankets, and 100,000 tarps. DOD delivered 9.3 million gallons of gasoline to 300 gas stations, and over 270 million gallons of saltwater was pumped out of transit tunnels. At the peak of the response, 17,000 Federal personnel and over 11,000 National Guardsmen were involved. The response was robust, quick, efficient, and I think the taxpayers of our country and I know the people of the region are grateful for the new FEMA that showed up. Not everything is perfect. We still have more work to do, but the response was much better than it was during Katrina.

However, that initial response is now over and the recovery must begin. The recovery cannot begin in earnest and no great plans can be made. Neither can Governor Christie nor Governor Cuomo, nor Mayor Bloomberg, nor Mayor Cory Booker or any other mayors, including the mayor of Hoboken in New Jersey, who testified before our committee this week--none of the mayors can get about framing the possibility of recovery without knowing certain things. They need to know that, A, FEMA is going to have enough money to stick with this, which they do not now because they are going to run out of money in the spring; they have to know that FEMA has enough money to go the distance. They don't know that now and, without the supplemental, they won't.

They have to know they have some mitigation money in this bill to repair and fix some of the dunes that were well engineered that protected communities and to rebuild dunes that failed because they were not engineered properly. No one is going to reinvest--or very few people will reinvest--behind a dune that is going to fail again.

There are fisheries communities along the coast and tourism along the coast, much like the gulf coast. So all of these pieces of recovery are very important. We can't send FEMA money without the Corps of Engineers money or without community development block grant money, because the recovery is a holistic recovery. Most people are very smart and many people like to hold on to what money they have left. They can't take the last little bit of their savings to rebuild their house and invest in their business if they don't know the Federal Government has sent money for the dune repair or the Federal Government has sent enough money for their fire station to get up and running. What good is having a business with no fire protection? What good is having a business if there is no grocery store within 30 miles? All of these things work together, and that is what we saw with Katrina. The question is not whether FEMA has enough money; the question is whether HUD has enough money--well, it is important that FEMA have enough money but it is not the only question. FEMA has to have money, but so does HUD, so does Transportation, and so does the Corps of Engineers.

In addition to what is happening along the east coast, nine States and the District of Columbia have been declared major disasters--well, nine States and the District of Columbia, from Hurricane Sandy. It is not just Hurricane Sandy. We had a record number of disasters last year around the country. So, yes, there is some money in this bill for other disasters and if we have to increase or decrease that sum to accommodate some of the interests of the Members, we are going to have to do so to get help not only to the Northeast but to other areas of the country as well.

North Dakota experienced terrible flooding. We were a little bit short on sending money to them and perhaps we should fix that in this bill. There have been some agricultural areas that have been very hard hit. We should fix that in this bill. Americans who pay taxes expect when they have catastrophic disasters for us to step up, and I think that is a good expectation, and I think it is a very fair expectation. When this country went to war over a decade ago, we didn't pay for the $1.4 trillion that it took to secure this Nation from an outside threat. Sometimes threats come right to our front door and we have to be willing to step up and give a small amount compared to the $1.4 trillion we spent in Iraq and in Afghanistan that was not offset. We should be willing to spend a very small portion--$60 billion in this case, over $100 billion for Katrina and Rita, and a few billion here and there. That is not an insignificant amount of money. A billion dollars is a lot of money. It sounds like a lot to anyone listening, but relative to the cost of the war, it is a very small investment in our own country to help Americans who have played by the rules, done everything they were asked to do--they even have insurance--yet, without this bill, there is not enough money in the insurance program to cover their claim when they file it.

If we don't pass this bill, there is not enough money for FEMA to do its job. There is not any money in the Corps of Engineers. There is not enough money for transportation. Taxpayers in the Northeast and around the country deserve our best efforts.

If there is a Member who believes there is something in this bill, whether it is in my section of the bill which is Homeland Security, or whether it is in another--if a Member doesn't feel as though a request in here is justified, please offer an amendment, let us debate it, and maybe we can make some changes or a modification. Unfortunately, I can say from personal experience, from watching the mayors I represent--all 300-plus mayors in the State, dozens of them, their communities were destroyed by Katrina, watching them struggle month after month, year after year, not knowing what money was coming from Washington; whether the levees would get repaired or not; whether there was going to be a community development block grant--I can tell my colleagues it is better to fund this on the front end like this. Give them the money, let them make their plans, and then in a year or two if it is not enough they can come back and we can make some adjustments as opposed to not acting or giving them too little to start. If we do that, the recovery will not get off in a very balanced way and it will cost the taxpayers so much more in the long run.

I am kind of responsible for the FEMA portion, for the flood insurance portion, and for some of the reforms that are represented in this bill. I wish to speak for a minute about those reforms because sometimes it is not just about investing money and giving money from Washington; sometimes it is giving money in a way that saves taxpayers money in the long run or for investing in a way that includes reform. This is not your grandfather's FEMA. This is a new FEMA. We have some new reforms that are authorized in this bill that are going to help the recovery go more quickly, and I wish to talk about that for a minute.

This is a reform-minded supplemental. It is drafted to be a more efficient, more effective, and smarter recovery, saving taxpayers money over time. It reauthorizes two expired pilot programs from the Post- Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, allows the use of money to repair rental housing units, and to expedite debris removal procedures. If my colleagues have not been a witness to a catastrophic disaster, they cannot imagine the amount of debris generated from either a massive fire or a massive flood. The old rules FEMA operated under were a waste of money, a waste of time, and lost opportunities. So we

have expedited debris removal. We cannot start rebuilding a community until we can get rid of the debris. It sounds like common sense and it is, but there are some bureaucratic hurdles and we are trying to fix those in this bill.

It allows the State to draw on a portion of the hazard mitigation funding from FEMA in order to leverage mitigation opportunities in the reconstruction process. Under the current program, it takes 18 to 36 months for funding to become available. By then, most reconstruction is already completed or underway. This would expedite--sort of forward fund--some of those projects, which is another smart move to save taxpayers money.

It codifies grants on the basis of flexible and fixed estimates for expedited removal of debris. It codifies temporary legislative measures that were connected to facilitate smarter recovery after Katrina and Rita, including third-party arbitration. It removes the penalty on alternative projects, and it allows FEMA to consolidate facilities.

Specifically, if 10 fire stations were lost in an area, instead of FEMA reimbursing each fire station one at a time, they can make a general estimate and receive a global settlement. We did this for our schools in New Orleans. One hundred out of 146 were destroyed. It was one of the smartest things we ever did, because before we passed this reform legislation, FEMA was asking us to count every piece of chalk that was missing, every eraser that was missing, every broken pane of glass, and would only refund the building of that exact building on that exact spot. We were able to have a global settlement where we could reconstruct our schools not to build a school system that had been built for the past century but to build a school system for the next century. That is what makes sense. That is what is in this reform supplemental.

There are better tools, more carefully designed to save taxpayers money and to help expedite a recovery of one of the most important financial centers in the world--not just in the United States but in the world. Every part of this country is important, but this particular part of the country, a lot of the rest of us depend on it operating at full speed, particularly as this recovery moves to our rearview mirror.

Let me say two or three more things. It reduces bureaucratic waste by eliminating the current practice of duplicative agency reviews for the same project. It will allow the rebuilding to, of course, consider environmental needs, but it does not require an environmental review by every agency for the same project. It helps to streamline that, which I think makes sense and honors the environment at the same time.

It includes tribal governments for the first time, which I think is an important addition, and, again, it requires an assessment of Hurricane Sandy's impact on local government budgets in the event they might need to borrow some additional money to continue to operate.

So, again, the $60 billion number is a large number. It is billions of dollars. It is not by any means pocket change, but compared to the money that was outlaid for the wars--$1.4 trillion--when disaster comes knocking at the door in our hometowns, whether it is Hoboken, NJ, or New Orleans, LA, taxpayers who live by the rules and pay their taxes every year expect not a handout, not an easy recovery, but they do expect the Federal Government to step up and at least be a partner in their recovery.

There are local taxes that are going to have to be raised. There are hundreds and thousands of hours of volunteer efforts that go into rebuilding communities. Churches and faith-based organizations show up and do more than their share, but the Federal Government most certainly should step up and help the Northeast and a few other disasters that are still open.

All of this money will come back to us one-hundredfold as these businesses get back up on their feet, start paying taxes again to the community, and hire people who have been laid off. In fact, it creates a little bit of a stimulus boon in those communities, which benefits the tax base as well, as taxes are collected from every business that is reopened. So it is a smart investment for us.

I would recommend to my colleagues if they have specific objections to a specific part of the bill to file an amendment. We can discuss it, we can debate it, and perhaps we can shave a little here or a little there; perhaps there are some things that can be done differently. But this has gone under careful review by the administration and by the different members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle, and, of course, vetted and screened by Governor Christie, a strong Republican leader in our country, Governor Cuomo, a strong Democratic leader in our country, and numerous mayors and elected officials have looked at this.

This is not something that was written in the dark of night somewhere by somebody who doesn't understand about disasters. It was carefully crafted for a very strong recovery for the Northeast.

I thank the Members for their suggestions and I look forward to the debate, and hopefully we can get this supplemental done before this Congress adjourns. I think the people of the Northeast and the rest of our country are depending on us to do that.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is customary in the days before Congress adjourns--and I am still hopeful this Congress will eventually, mercifully adjourn--for Members to offer farewells and testimonials to departing colleagues. I rise today to say a few words about a Senator who is leaving us and whose example I esteem and friendship I have relied on for many years.

Senator Jon Kyl and I have served the State of Arizona together for a quarter of a century since Jon was first elected to the other body and I to the Senate in 1986. We have worked together in this body for the last 18 years. That is a long time to get to know someone with whom you share responsibilities to the State we are honored to represent, and I have gotten to know Jon very well over these many years. I can also say in all honesty that my admiration for him has grown

every single day I have been privileged to serve with him.

I share that admiration for Jon with the people of Arizona, who elected him to the Senate three times, and would have, I am sure, comfortably elected him to a fourth term had he sought reelection. Arizonans hold him in very high regard for a very obvious reason: He has been a very diligent, very effective advocate for their interests.

I have observed him closely as we tended to issues that might seem arcane and unglamorous to Senators from other States but are among the most important and often the most contentious issues to Arizonans-- issues such as land exchanges and water rights settlements. I have never failed to be impressed by the qualities Jon brings to these matters--his unflappable patience, his tireless work ethic, his careful attention to detail, his determination to be fair to all parties involved, and to achieve results that are in the best interests of our State of Arizona.

I have tried to learn from his example, and I wish I could say I have emulated him, but, regrettably, as Arizonans and my Senate colleagues can attest, I still possess a short supply of some of Jon's most conspicuous leadership qualities. His patience, for example, his meticulous preparation and thoroughness are, I am sorry to say, not qualities I will be remembered for, but they have been indispensable to the people of our State. It is fortunate for them and for me that States are represented by two Senators and that Arizonans have had Jon Kyl here to compensate for my shortcomings.

Jon works harder than almost any Member of Congress I know. We all joke about how we are often required to vote on legislation before we have had time to read it. But it is a poorly kept secret that we rarely, if ever, read from preamble to conclusion any of the bills we consider, even if we have had months to do so. Jon does, though. He reads them. When you debate with him over legislation, you better know what you are talking about, because he does and he is almost always better prepared than you are not only to explain his argument but to explain yours as well. He often writes the bills he sponsors, work that most of us almost happily rely on staff to perform. He takes his responsibilities as the author of legislation literally, rather than figuratively, as most of us do.

It is hard to imagine where he finds the time to hold himself to such exacting standards of responsibility, but he does, often working late into the night after the rest of us have gone home, when he reads bills and writes them and tends personally to the concerns of his constituents. He is a Senator's Senator. He is principled, purposeful, informed, collaborative, and able to get things done by cooperation and compromise without ever sacrificing the principles that motivate his public service. He would rather reason with opponents than insult them. He prefers accomplishments to acclaim.

It is little wonder then why our caucus elected and reelected him to our leadership. He has the complete confidence of every one of us. He is an easy man to trust with leadership responsibilities. He is scrupulous in his attention to his responsibilities and fair-minded in use of authority. He has strong views on issues and advocates for them effectively. But if he can't persuade some members of our caucus to agree with him, he will do all he can to defend our rights to be heard and have our position considered fully by the Senate.

I think Members on both sides of the aisle would testify to Jon's fairness, collegiality, and effectiveness. I think we would all testify too to the credit his service has reflected on the Senate, a place we all love but which we must admit doesn't always function as well or as congenially as we would like, a failing that has not escaped the notice of the American people. Were Jon the kind of politician who worried more about his press than his responsibilities to his constituents, his colleagues, and his country, I think many Americans would recognize him as the kind of Senator they wished there were more of here.

It has been my privilege to work with Jon not only on issues of unique importance to the State of Arizona but on many of national importance. We worked together on comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. None of the sponsors of the legislation, including myself and my friend, the late Senator Kennedy, was more instrumental in forging the compromises necessary to put that bipartisan bill together or more diligent and effective in defending it in debate.

I was running for President that year and often away from the Senate. In addition to all the work Jon did to write the bill with Senator Kennedy and others, and seek support for it in both Houses, he had to assume many of my responsibilities as well. He did a better job with them than I did, and though we fell short of success, Jon deserves none of the blame for failure and much of the credit for making the bill as broadly bipartisan as it was and for providing the framework for what will be the kind of compromise I hope and believe we will get to the President's desk in the next Congress.

Longevity in public office isn't always that important a distinction. I have served one term more than Jon and for that minor accomplishment I am referred to as the senior Senator from Arizona. But honestly, I have always looked up to Jon as my senior. He has been my leader, my senior partner in much of the work we have done in Arizona, my friend, and one of the people I most look up to in this place, an example of selfless, capable, honorable public service.

He is leaving the Senate, and he will have time now to spend with his lovely wife Caryll, his son and daughter and his grandchildren. He will have more time too to hike his beloved White Mountains. I envy him that. But I think we would all concede the Senate will miss him, and I will miss him particularly.

Thank you, my friend, for your service, your example, and your friendship. It has been a privilege.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, is the parliamentary situation in order so I could send an amendment to the desk?

I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

This is McCain-Coburn amendment No. 3355. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coburn be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3355.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment is a very simple one. It calls for striking the funding of some $58 million for the USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Restoration Program for planting trees on private property. It is actually a farm bill subsidy program that is run by a relatively unknown agency that is called the Farm Service Administration, which is primarily responsible for managing crop insurance.

Under this program, private landowners with about 50 acres of land can apply for up to $500,000 in free grants for tree planting activities. Obviously, this has nothing to do with an emergency, and there is nothing in the supplemental that limits the funding to Hurricane Sandy areas. Under this bill, this $58 million can be used just about anywhere.

I would like to make a few remarks about the bill itself so we have this in the right context.

First of all, I want our colleagues--everyone--to understand there are none of us who do not support--there is no one who does not support--giving the much needed funding as quickly as possible to help relieve the tragedy of Hurricane Sandy, and we believe there are important parts of this appropriations bill that we should pass immediately. But we also believe there are many provisions in this bill that both have nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy and many of the programs in this bill will not even take effect before the year 2015. We are about to reach the year 2013. We cannot consider this much needed appropriation outside the context that we now have nearly a $17 trillion debt, and, obviously, this $60 billion is now going to be added to the debt because none of it is paid for.

Let's be clear about this. Every one of my colleagues on this side of the aisle wants to act quickly to provide much needed relief for the people who have been impacted by the horrible effects of Hurricane Sandy. But we cannot consider this legislation in a vacuum. We are looking at a $17 trillion debt--somewhere between $16 and $17 trillion. We have committed generational theft. We have mortgaged our

children's and our grandchildren's future. So we must be very careful as to how much more of the taxpayers' dollars are spent. For what? When is this money necessary? Those are the questions this body should be asking itself.

I would argue there are a whole lot of billions of dollars in this bill that fit into the categories of, one, not necessary as a result of the impact of Hurricane Sandy and certainly not an emergency situation.

I would like to go over some of the projects that are in this bill, and some of them hold merit. Some of the projects in this bill are very meritorious. It goes way beyond emergency aid and funds projects, as I said. At a time when we face these deficits, we cannot justify this spending. Again, I wish to emphasize some of the projects are meritorious, but they should go through the normal budget and appropriations process, where Congress has time to vet the need for such spending requests.

The CBO examined both the Senate bill and the administration's request and found--and this is from the Congressional Budget Office--64 percent of the funds appropriated under the Sandy supplemental will not be spent until fiscal years 2015 to 2022 and after, therefore, raising concerns about the rush to spend $60.4 billion without any attempt to pay for it.

Two weeks ago, FEMA Director Fugate told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that the Disaster Relief Fund currently has enough money and will not need additional funding until the spring of 2013. CBO's assessment, combined with the statement of Director Fugate, clearly shows we need to pass a Sandy supplemental bill that only includes prioritized disaster aid funding.

I and my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, have been examining this bill over the last few days, and I will tell my colleagues, we have not gotten all the way through it. We have not identified a lot of these spending bills--what they are for and where they came from. The appropriators and their staff I always admire. They have turned it into an art form, and our ability to ferret out some of these appropriations has required a great deal of hard work and effort.

We have billions to replace ``Federal assets'' damaged by the storm, including automobiles owned by the Federal Government. The Federal Government currently owns or leases over 660,000 vehicles. Do you think we could find replacements within our own inventory, the current inventory? Shouldn't we focus on providing relief directly to those still trying to rebuild their lives before replacing a bureaucrats' car?

There is $2 million to repair damage to the roofs of museums in Washington, DC, while many in Hurricane Sandy's path still have no permanent roof over their own heads.

There is $150 million for fisheries as far away from the storm's path as Mississippi and Alaska.

There is $125 million for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection Program, which helps restore watersheds damaged by wildfires and droughts for areas, including Colorado, and, by the way, including my own State of Arizona. That money is needed. It is needed. We are having wildfires across the Southwest and the West in an unprecedented fashion because we are in severe drought, and I want that money for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection Program. But it has nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy. That is what is wrong with this bill. I will fight for the $125 million that would help my State of Arizona, and I will fight to find ways to pay for it. I will do both. But we are including $125 million for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection Program, which is several hundred miles away from the path of Hurricane Sandy.

There is $20 million for a nationwide Water Resources Priorities Study. While studies are important, they are not emergencies and should be submitted during the upcoming budget debate.

We badly need a water resources priorities study. There was just a recent study about the Colorado River basin and how we are going to run out of water. But, again, the water resources priorities study is not associated with Hurricane Sandy.

There is $15 million for NASA facilities, though NASA itself has called its damage from the hurricane minimal. One day after the storm hit, NASA's Wallops Island put out a statement stating that ``an initial assessment team surveyed roads and facilities at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility today reporting a number of downed trees but otherwise minimal impact in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.'' Does this mean we need $15 million for NASA's facilities?

There is $336 million for taxpayer-supported Amtrak without a detailed plan for how the money will be spent. Some of the funding will go for repairs. Money will also go to increasing capacity and future mitigation efforts. Amtrak is up and running. We can go right over here--not very far from here--to Union Station and get on Amtrak. It is not apparent why this funding is deemed ``emergency'' spending and included in this spending package. Further mitigation should be debated next year.

The dirty little secret is that Amtrak loses billions of dollars every year. That is because we subsidize unneeded and unnecessary routes. The route on the east coast from here to New York, for example, makes money. But we cling to those routes that neither make money nor does anybody care to patronize.

There is $5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers--more than the Army Corps of Engineers' annual budget. With no clarity as to how the money will be spent. Included in the Senate bill is $50 million in funding for more studies, which will most definitely lead to additional Army Corps projects and a new task force established by executive order.

More projects are not something the Army Corps can handle. They are currently experiencing a backlog of construction and maintenance projects of approximately $70 billion. Furthermore, a 2010 report released by the Government Accountability Office noted that carryover funds have increased ``due to the large amount of supplemental funding the Corps has received in recent years.'' Clearly, supplemental spending on the Army Corps has not paid off.

The bill includes $12 to $13 billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies, without identifying a single way to pay for it. I think we need future disaster mitigation activities. We need studies. We are experiencing climate situations which we never anticipated. Certainly Hurricane Sandy was never anticipated by any of us. We need the studies. But that is not an emergency to handle the effects of Hurricane Sandy and should come out of normal funding and be paid for. I support these studies. But should they come out of the taxpayers' pocket without a way to pay for it?

There is no justification to include these projects in this emergency spending bill. Waiting to fund these projects until next year during the normal budget and appropriations process, we will have a better understanding of the path forward and reduce the possibility of waste, fraud, and abuse.

There is $10 million to improve weather forecasting capabilities and infrastructure. Mr. President, $10 million to improve weather forecasting capabilities and infrastructure--do we truly need to include that in an emergency funding bill for Hurricane Sandy? As I mentioned at the beginning, at some point we are going to have to start paying for things. At some point we are going to run out of Chinese money. At some point we are going to be like Greece. At some point the American people are going to say ``enough.'' Every American family has to balance their budget. Every American family has to make tough decisions. Why don't we make some tough decisions if we want to have things paid for such as weather capabilities, such as Amtrak, such as replacing Federal assets, buying vehicles when we have 660,000 vehicles in the inventory? Why don't we start making tough decisions?

I often mention that the approval rating we have from the American people is rather interestingly low. The last one I saw was an 11- percent approval rating. No wonder--no wonder--we are about, in a matter of literally hours, to spend about $60 billion of the American taxpayers' money--estimates by some are it should be around $24 billion--without hearings, without the kinds of

scrutiny it deserves in the normal appropriations process.

I understand why we need some of this money in an emergency fashion. But it is akin to the train leaving the station. It is loaded with pork and it is moving and so everybody wants to get on board. It is not the way the Congress should do business.

So, Mr. President, I will ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment, which is to strike funding for $58 million for the tree planting subsidy known as the Forest Restoration Program for planting trees on private property.

I am asking for the yeas and nays.

OK. Then I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I object.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

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

Madam President, I appreciate the words of the Senator from Arizona about the Senator from Arizona, and let me say I look forward to sharing some words on the floor at some point in the next few days about my friend Senator Kyl. We have disagreed on things in some ways, but, boy, have we gotten to know each other. I respect his service enormously, and I look forward to having a chance to share some thoughts about that.

Remembering Daniel K. Inouye

Madam President, I think all of us are aware that too often in public life words like ``good friend'' or ``remarkable colleague'' are used so often they lose a little bit of their impact. But I think we all share powerfully--ever since the majority leader announced the sad news last evening, and we have seen so many come to the floor to talk about Senator Inouye--in the knowledge that Senator Danny Inouye really was all those things and so much more.

He was a quiet man, a humble man, a soft-spoken public servant, but those of us who were privileged to serve for so long with Dan Inouye know we truly got to know him. I had the privilege of sitting beside him and listening to some of the stories talking about things that were happening in the Senate, and we truly did get to love him and revere him.

It was more than his uniquely American journey--from the trenches of World War II to the Halls of Congress--more than his leadership and moral authority on everything from civil rights to the Watergate and Iran-Contra hearings. It was more than the Dan Inouye we could read about on paper. It was the man himself, in the flesh, who was bigger than the legend. That is why the Senate is going to feel his loss for a long time.

We often hear the words ``greatest generation.'' Before Tom Brokaw coined the phrase, we knew what it referred to, particularly in the Senate where some of us were privileged to serve with people such as Bob Dole, John Glenn, Fritz Hollings, and so many others.

Danny was a bridge to that generation--a generation that I revered growing up in the shadows of World War II. I remember talking with my dad and hearing how he had volunteered for the Army Air Corps as war loomed over Europe. He was a pilot flying DC-3s, paratroopers, preparing to go over for the invasion, and he shared with me his regret that he came down with tuberculosis and he was released from Active Duty and, in his perception, never got his chance to defend his country.

I think about just how much more complicated the prospect of going to war must have been for a young Danny Inouye--just 21 years old with dreams of becoming a surgeon, dreams interrupted by Pearl Harbor. Here he was, the son of immigrants who came to work in Hawaii's pineapple fields, his entire life he had thought of himself as a patriotic American. Then, suddenly, at a time when across the country young men were heeding the call to duty, Dan Inouye's own Nation declared him and his family alien enemies. But Dan Inouye's response was not to pull inward or to leave or forsake his country. His response was to sign up and fight for the country he loved so deeply, even at a time when his government's vision was clouded by the horror of Pearl Harbor.

Fight for his country he did. He put on the uniform and showed us what both he and our country are all about. We know Dan was a hero. We know he lost his arm on the battlefield in Italy. But I never once heard Dan talk about the details of that action that would ultimately result in him being awarded the Medal of Honor. He was a quiet man who never bragged and rarely spoke of himself. But the citation speaks volumes about him and who he became on that bleak April day when Second Lieutenant Inouye and his platoon mounted a defense of a ridge guarding a critical road junction in San Terenzo, Italy. The citation says, very simply:

With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second

Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within

five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two

grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could

retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun

nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to

engage other hostile positions at close range until an

exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the

intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct

his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men

were again deployed in defensive positions.

That was Dan Inouye. He was a hero whose entire life's lesson was a victory over discrimination and anger. Despite the sting of bigotry at home--he lost his arm for his country and almost his life--rather than being consumed by rancor, he became a voice for reconciliation.

Because of what he had experienced growing up as a Japanese American in what was still a heavily segregated country, Dan always fought to make sure that no Americans ever felt unsafe or unwelcomed. ``This is our country,'' he famously said in his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968.

I still remember that speech. I was riveted watching it on television. I was in the Navy, serving then. I was training before departing for Vietnam. It was strange, the juxtaposition of Dan Inouye's words and the hope and what he represented to the carnage in the streets, watching what seemed to be a country coming apart at the seams. But there was this young Senator, this decorated World War II veteran who spoke words that were as chilling as they were prescient. He said:

The true dimension of the challenge facing us is a loss of

faith. I do not mean simply a loss of religious faith . . . I

mean a loss of faith in our country, in its purposes and its

institutions. I mean a retreat from the responsibilities of

citizenship.

He went on to say famously:

This is our country. Its future is what we, its citizens,

will make it. . . . Putting aside hatred on the one hand and

timidity on the other, let us grow fresh faith in our purpose

and new vigor in our citizenship.

Those words would serve us well as we think about the challenges we face right now in the Senate. That is the kind of citizenship and patriotism that Dan Inouye stood for, not just in 1968 but every day we were tested.

After 9/11, Danny was as determined as anyone to bring to justice the terrorists who attacked us on that fateful day. The media said it was our Pearl Harbor. Dan Inouye remembered better than anybody the first Pearl Harbor. He was there. He lived through it. But he also had deep convictions about the historic lessons learned the hard way after the first Pearl Harbor--mistakes he refused to see repeated 60 years later. In the aftermath of September 11, Dan Inouye sounded a warning. He said:

I hope that the mistakes and suffering imposed upon

Japanese Americans nearly 60 years ago will not be repeated

again against Arab Americans whose loyalties are now being

called into question.

It was a forceful defense. I think it was heard across the Nation. Dan understood our values aren't just talk. They are about the choices we make, the causes we champion, and the people we fight for. As Dan reminded us in Chicago in 1968, this is our country, and its future is what we, its citizens, make of it.

He was an incredible person. During his long painful recovery at Percy Army Hospital in Michigan, Dan was down to 93 pounds and exhausted. He knew he would never be a surgeon as he once dreamed. He struggled then even to light a cigarette and he wanted to curse at his nurse. Unbowed, she taught him how to light a cigarette with one hand and said simply: ``From now on, you're going to be learning.'' Dan Inouye did learn. Happily, we can say he also taught. He taught all of us with the power of his example.

During his convalescence at Percy Jones Army Hospital, he met another young lieutenant, a man by the name of Bob Dole. They became fast friends and nursed themselves back to health.

About 2 short weeks ago, two ``greatest generation'' brothers, ailing and approaching their 90th birthdays, Dan

Inouye and Bob Dole were still here teaching us, teaching us what is worth fighting for. I will never forget seeing Danny with his oxygen tube walking up to Bob Dole before casting his vote in the hopes of helping disabled veterans when they travel overseas. Here were these two older citizens telling the Senate, through actions and not words, that we have to be better than this place has sometimes been in recent days.

Bob Dole said something about Danny that has deeper meaning now that he has left us. Bob said, over there in that corner near the door, looking at Danny:

He was wounded a week from the day I was and a mile from

the place I was wounded, and we ended up in the same

hospital. He's a Democrat and I'm a Republican, but parties

didn't make any difference.

Those are bonds we ought to learn something from. Those are bonds we ought to do a better job of honoring today in this institution Dan Inouye loved so deeply.

Dan Inouye was a special kind of public servant. He walked his own path. He got out of that hospital bed, returned to college under the GI bill, and went on to George Washington University for his law degree. He got himself elected to the Hawaii Territorial Legislature at the ripe old age of 30 and then on to the House of Representatives as Hawaii's first full member after it won statehood in 1959. Just 3 years later, Danny Inouye was a Senator, and eventually he would rise to become the highest ranking public official of Asian descent in U.S. history.

I will never forget the critical role he played on the special committees that investigated Watergate in the 1970s and Iran-Contra in the 1980s. I was here during Iran-Contra, a freshman who approached those investigations with a certain zeal. I was in a hurry to find out the truth. But I learned from Dan Inouye that a good Senator can navigate the path to truth while taking extraordinary care to protect and nurture the national interests. So when Dan famously warned at the Iran-Contra hearings that there exists a ``shadowy government'' that can ``pursue its own ideas of the national interests, free from all checks and balances and free from the law itself,'' we all understood the gravity and truth behind those words because we respected the integrity of the statesman who spoke them.

Dan had a special sense of his own responsibilities as the first Member of Congress from Hawaii. He believed in the Federal Government's ability to make a difference in people's lives. He was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, as we all know. For all the talk in the media about earmarks and pork-barrel spending, we saw in Dan how one Senator could actually advance the interests of their State and articulate a vision for that State which didn't violate anybody's sensibilities about how we ought to be spending a Federal tax dollar. He used his position unapologetically to bring home investments in Hawaii to build roads and bridges and classrooms, all of which changed people's lives on an island that most of us only thought of in the context of a vacation destination. To Dan, it wasn't a resort. It was home. It was people. As the son of a Japanese immigrant who came to work in those pineapple fields, Dan needed to make no apologies about using the Federal Government to make life for the people he represented better.

It was a perspective that endeared him to his colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and no one more so than Republican Senator Ted Stevens. They became like brothers. Theirs was a friendship that stood the test of time. I often heard the stories from Dan or from Ted--whom I got to know well--about how they would travel to various parts of the world to see how America was investing its funds and how their friendship simply grew during the course of those journeys together. Theirs was a friendship that stood the test of time. This place would be a lot better off if we could forge bonds the way Dan and Ted did since the 1960s. They didn't capitulate. They didn't lose their values. They compromised, and they always put what was best--in the case of Dan, Hawaii, and in the case of Ted, Alaska, and in both their cases, the country--ahead of any kind of partisan squabbling.

Danny Inouye lived a full and remarkable life, and we will miss him dearly. He was proud of his Japanese heritage, proud of his roots, and proud of his service as a champion of veterans and veterans' rights. He loved our troops. It is fitting that a building at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research now bears his name.

I often marveled at how hard he fought to regain his health in the face of mounting odds.

He died with no regrets. ``Aloha'' was his last word.

Hawaii misses Daniel Inouye, America misses him, and our thoughts are with his wife Irene and his son Daniel Ken, Jr., who is a great friend of my stepson Johnny Heinz, and also the rest of his family at this difficult time.

I yield the floor.

Last week, the Judiciary Committee considered S.3276, a bill reauthorizing the surveillance provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which is set to expire at the end of this year. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General have both stated that reauthorization of these important national security authorities is the ``top legislative priority of the Intelligence Community.''

After the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported its reauthorization bill, I asked for a sequential referral. Senator Grassley joined me in that request. It was for a limited time and had we not completed our markup last Thursday, time might well have expired for this committee to act on it. I was surprised last week and since to be criticized for seeking to improve the

bill within its four corners. I thought that was why we sought the sequential referral, in order to consider and improve the bill where we could.

I worked with Senator Feinstein, the chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence. We came to an understanding and she supported the substitute amendment I offered to shorten the sunset and add more accountability and oversight protections. I thank her for that. I am always willing to work with the Senator from California, who is so diligent in her efforts on the Intelligence Committee. We reached a good compromise and agreement.

I had circulated the core of my amendment, to shorten the sunset, back on July 11, before the bill was to be considered. At the request of Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, the bill was held over. I protected their right to do so under our rules. We finally proceeded to the bill last Thursday, July 19. Despite the delay, no Republicans spoke to me about any potential amendments to the bill.

Instead, the evening before the delayed markup, for the first time, Republican offices circulated scores of amendments. It is unfortunate that there have been mischaracterizations of our committee process. Contrary to the statements of some on the other side, no one was precluded from offering an amendment. In fact, a number were offered by Republican Senators. The committee proceeded to vote on Senator Kyl's amendment, for example, to create a new material support of terrorism offense in title 18, and rejected it after Senator Feinstein argued against including it on this important measure, despite her support for the substance of the amendment. We proceeded to vote on Senator Lee's amendment, which was about FISA surveillance, and it, too, was defeated. So despite the misstatements to the contrary, the committee proceeded to consider and reject amendments.

There came a point during our initial 2-hour markup when Senator Feinstein urged that amendments about matters not involving the FISA Amendments Act extension be considered on other vehicles at other times, and moved to table amendments. Those motions prevailed. We have had such motions before and sometimes they succeed.

After 2 hours, as Republican Senators left, we lost a quorum and had to reconvene to vote on reporting the bill as amended to the Senate. I thank those Senators from both sides of the aisle who reconvened. The committee voted to report the measure and was able to do so within the short timeframe of our sequential referral.

The FISA Amendments Act legislation is a top priority of the administration and our intelligence community. We have all acknowledged that. The ranking member acknowledged that it is ``a program vital to our national security.'' A number of Republicans proclaimed last week that they were ready to expedite consideration of the measure and would not offer amendments. Then, when the committee adopted the June 2015 sunset date instead of one of the 2017 dates in other versions of the bill, they changed position and sought to use it as a vehicle for extraneous matters and to offer a number of riders to it that were rejected. I do not understand that logic and why the change in the sunset date or the addition of oversight provisions should change the character of the bill or its importance to our national security. The bill is needed to continue the authority to conduct electronic surveillance of non-U.S. persons overseas under certain procedures approved by the FISA Court.

The Justice Department and DNI have told us:

[It] is vital in keeping the Nation safe. It provides

information about the plans and identities of terrorists,

allowing us to glimpse inside terrorist organizations and

obtain information about how those groups function and

receive support. In addition, it lets us collect information

about the intentions and capabilities of weapons

proliferators and other foreign adversaries who threaten the

United States. Failure to reauthorize Section 702 would

result in a loss of significant intelligence and impede the

ability of the intelligence community to respond quickly to

new threats and intelligence opportunities.

The committee agreed with Senator Feinstein when she asked us not to open the bill up to ``extraneous amendments.'' As it was, the committee considered half a dozen amendments offered by Republican Senators. I appreciated Senator Kyl volunteering to have his staff convene a meeting to consider amendments to our terrorist statutes that he does not think will be controversial.

Notably, the vast majority of the amendments filed and offered by the Republicans would not have changed or added a single word to either the underlying bill or the underlying statute. Senator Lee's amendment was the only Republican amendment that dealt in any way with the relevant FISA authorities. That amendment received an up-or-down vote by the committee, and most Republican members voted against it.

Once it became clear that the Republican Senators intended to offer a series of extraneous amendments, Senator Feinstein moved to table amendments that were not germane to her bill. She has that right. I protect the rights of all members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats. Four such amendments were tabled, but notably they were tabled by a vote of the full committee, not simply through a ruling by the chairman or my making up rules, as Republican chairmen have done in the past. Indeed, although a motion to table is typically not subject to debate, I asked the committee's indulgence to permit such discussion. No Senator was cut off from offering amendments or engaging in debate.

It is telling that the two amendments that Senator Grassley offered during the committee's consideration of the FISA Amendments Act had absolutely no connection whatsoever with the provisions of title VII of FISA. The first amendment that Senator Grassley offered would have added the death penalty as a punishment to certain crimes involving weapons of mass destruction. The second amendment that he offered would have required a Department of Justice Inspector General audit of criminal wiretap applications from 2009 to 2010. This amendment may be important to Senator Grassley in the context of the Fast and Furious controversy, but it certainly is not relevant to the FISA Amendments Act. Senator Feinstein moved to table both amendments and the motion carried each time.

Let us be accurate, Republican members of the committee were afforded the opportunity to offer amendments, even ones outside the scope of the legislation. The committee has a process, and we followed that process.

I understand that Republican Senators are disappointed that they were not able to use the FISA Amendments Act legislation as a vehicle to carry other legislation. I am disappointed that, as with so many good bills the committee has reported, there was so little Republican support for a measure that everyone concedes is vital to our national security. Like the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which received no Republican vote on this committee; and the Second Chance Act, which received no Republican votes on this committee after a number of Republican amendments were considered and even though it had been a program strongly supported by Republicans historically; the FISA Amendments Act Sunsets Extension Act was not supported by a single Republican Senator on this committee.

Let me remind Senators, again, that the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General have emphasized that the reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act is the intelligence community's ``top legislative priority.'' I encourage any Senator who has not yet done so to review the classified information that the administration has provided to Congress about the implementation of the FISA Amendments Act. This is a measure that requires serious debate and swift action not partisan bickering or baseless accusations. I sincerely hope that we can set aside the election year posturing and press ahead with consideration of this important national security measure. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who will be retiring at the end of the year. Senator Hutchison has been a dear friend and colleague for a long time. She has always been ready to offer wise counsel, and I have usually listened.

It is truly bittersweet saying goodbye to Kay. On the one hand, I understand her desire to spend more time with Bailey and Houston; we are all glad she will now be able to cheer from the sidelines at their soccer games. On the other hand, we will miss seeing them practice their corner kicks on the second floor of the Russell building.

By the way, if you have ever been with Kay on one of her early morning power walks, you know where her kids get their energy. I am told Kay has worn out multiple Members of Congress, several staffers, and quite a few others on those walks. And it is a fitting metaphor for her career. There are so many talents in the Senate, it is easy to forget what remarkable stories many of them have. And Senator Hutchison's is without question one of the most impressive.

Raised in an era when women were a rarity in politics, Kay forged her own path, kicking open the door of opportunity wherever she went. In the process, she has come to personify Texan independence; which is entirely fitting, since one of Kay's great-great-great grandfathers signed the Texas Declaration of Independence.

Kay's many successes in life are a testament to her personal toughness and determination in the face of what would have seemed like insurmountable obstacles to many lesser talents. Though she was ``brought up,'' as she once put it, ``to be a lady, to have good manners--and to be ready to get married,'' she always excelled in school. And she was one of just a handful of women, out of a class of hundreds, to graduate from her University of Texas law school class in 1967.

Kay hit what she called her ``first brick wall'' after graduation. Law firms in Texas just were not hiring women back then, so she turned to an industry that would give her a chance, becoming Houston's first female news reporter. Indeed, thanks to Kay's success, two competing Houston networks hired female reporters within 6 months of her arrival at KPRC-TV, the NBC affiliate, in 1967. Appropriately, Kay was assigned to cover the Texas Legislature, and she gave it her all.

Having inherited her dad's work ethic, she was soon being encouraged to run for office herself. At the time, few women served in the Texas legislature, and not a single female Republican had ever been elected to the State House. But Kay had an idea: if those law firms were not going to let her interpret the law, she might as well ask her neighbors if they would elect her to make the law. So, at the age of 28, Kay ran for the Texas House. She dispatched her male opponents with ease, becoming one of just 13 Republicans elected that year to the 150-member Texas House. It was a tough transition. Kay says that as a cheerleader at UT, she was not really prepared for the combat of politics. As a cheerleader, she said, she wanted everybody to like her. But she overcame that too. Kay has engaged in a lot of tough battles over the years, and she has won most of them.

One story along those lines relates to Kay's office over in Russell. Anybody who has ever been there knows that it is at the end of on a dead-end hallway, and that at the very end stands a very large flag of Texas. Apparently, when Kay put the flag out, the staff director of the Rules Committee did not like it. He thought it violated a rule, so he mentioned it to his boss, Senator John Warner. Legend has it that Senator Warner nodded gravely--gravely--at the young man and told him he was free to approach Senator Hutchison, but that he had no intention of taking on the mission himself. She is tough.

Following her service in the State legislature, Kay worked as a businesswoman before winning election as State treasurer in 1990. Three years later, when Senator Lloyd Bentsen accepted an offer to become President Clinton's treasury secretary, Kay jumped into the race to replace him. Once again, she bested another all-male field to advance to a runoff against Bentsen's appointed successor, trouncing the incumbent Democrat with nearly 70 percent of the vote, and becoming the first woman to represent the Nation's second-largest State in the U.S. Senate.

Kay came to Washington ready to work. She established herself early on as a leader on transportation and NASA, and as a fighter for lower taxes, and smaller, smarter government. Kay won acclaim as an advocate for science and competitiveness, helped secure bipartisan support for the landmark America COMPETES Act, and she became known throughout the State for the close attention she paid to constituents.

Shortly after her election to the Senate, Kay began a tradition-- imitated by many others since--of holding weekly constituent meetings over coffee whenever the Senate is in session. The groups usually range in size from about 100 to 150, and at any given coffee you might come across families in Bermuda shorts, bankers in pinstripes, or college football players. Over the years, Kay has hosted about 50,000 people in her office through these coffees, but her attention to constituent service goes well beyond that. Back home, she is one of few politicians in Texas who have actually visited all 254 counties, some of which are home to more cattle than people. And during Kay's tenure, her office has helped broker the rescue of a Texan from atop Mt. Everest, evacuate an oil worker and students during a revolution in Albania, evacuate tourists from Machu Pichu after a flood, and help evacuate workers and missionaries from Haiti after the devastating hurricanes of 2008.

All of us are grateful to Senator Hutchison for her work in finally recognizing the hundreds of female Army Air Force pilots--or WASPs--who flew non-combat missions in World War II, so male pilots would be free for combat missions. Thirty-eight of these women lost their lives performing their duties. We thank Senator Hutchison for raising awareness of their service and their sacrifice and honoring their memory. Senator Hutchison's thoughts are never far from our men and women in uniform. Her office walls are filled with photos of her visits with our troops in Bosnia, Iraq, and elsewhere. In the run-up to the Budget Control Act, she authored a bill to assure servicemen and women would be paid in the event of a government shutdown, recruiting more than 80 cosponsors. She served as chair and ranking member of the Military Construction subcommittee on Appropriations. She was a tenacious advocate for Texas during a series of BRACs, and the results speak for themselves: Today, one out of five Army and Air Force personnel are stationed at military installations in Texas, many of which were once considered likely candidates for closing.

Throughout her Senate career, Kay has worked hard to develop and maintain close relationships with fellow female senators from both parties. As a result of those friendships, Kay helped co-author the book ``Nine and Counting: The Women of the Senate'' in 2000, teamed up with Senator Feinstein to create the Amber Alert system, and co- authored legislation with Senator Mikulski to provide stay-at-home moms with the same tax-credit opportunities as working women. One of her proudest achievements was to lead the successful flight to lessen the marriage penalties in our tax code.

As the ranking member on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Kay has wielded outsize influence, partly due to her strong working relationship with Chairman Rockefeller, who sometimes refers to her as his co-chairperson. And I can say for myself that having Kay at the leadership table has been a tremendous asset as I have navigated challenges over the years.

A truly gifted politician, Kay secured reelection by wide margins in 1994, 2000, and 2006, and still holds the record for most votes in Texas history. One reason is she will work with anyone--even those with whom she might not typically agree--if it helps Texas.

While I know many are sorry to see this giant of Texas politics leave the arena in Washington, I am sure every one of them admires the spirit in which she returns to Ray and the kids and their busy Dallas home. Kay, on behalf of the entire Senate, thank you for your extraordinary service and for your friendship.

I know you won't miss having to answer to that buzzer anymore, but we will miss you. It has been a privilege to serve with you. On behalf of the entire Senate family, I wish you all the very best.