Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to stand here today to support President Obama's nomination of my esteemed colleague, Senator John Kerry, to serve as our Nation's next Secretary of State.

Senator Kerry has had a long career of service to the American people. We have served together in the Senate for 26 years and I look forward to continuing our relationship. As a Senator he has always approached his work with seriousness and dedication. Nowhere can this be seen more than in his work as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he has shown a mastery of the challenges that face our global community.

As the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee he has played a prominent role in the establishment of U.S. foreign policy. He has traveled the globe and built relationships and coalitions with international leaders. Most importantly, he has demonstrated an ability to balance our Nation's long history of diplomacy with our changing national security needs. The unanimous support given to him by the Foreign Relations Committee exhibits the respect and confidence he has earned from this body.

The Department of State faces evolving challenges that reflect our increasingly interconnected world and require a modern approach to diplomacy. Senator Kerry will lead a team that must confront global security challenges and ensure the security of our diplomatic corps and their families. I am confident that Senator Kerry will meet these challenges, and I will work with him to ensure that the State Department and its employees have the resources they need to serve their mission.

While I am sorry to see Secretary Clinton leave her post after 4 successful and productive years, I am pleased to know that Senator Kerry will take on the role with the same dedication. I call on my colleagues to join me in approving his nomination to Secretary of State.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to immediately pass this urgent supplemental bill without further delay. I remind my colleagues and those who are watching us on global C-SPAN, this is the bill that will pay for disaster relief to help our citizens, both as individuals, businesses, and communities, rebuild their lives after the devastating, horrific impact of Hurricane Sandy. Particularly, it will impact the residents of New York and New Jersey.

My own State was affected also. In my own State, we had two things happen: a hurricane in the old-fashioned definition of that word, where it hit the Eastern Shore; and up in western Maryland, right up in our Appalachian part; we had a blizzard, and it took the National Guard to be able to go into the streets. We had people being rescued on Swift Boats and on snowmobiles. It was something.

At the same time, I think all America watched what was going on up the coast but particularly in New Jersey and New York.

Many other States were also impacted by this storm. Homes and businesses were damaged and destroyed, and they have been waiting for 90 days for help from their government to help them rebuild their lives and rebuild their livelihoods.

I, therefore, tonight ask immediate, urgent action to move this bill. It is not perfect, but it is a very sound bill. The bill that was passed by the Senate in December was a superior bill. The House bill, which is before us, eliminates many important provisions that the Senate passed.

I will go into that, but I urge my colleagues, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. We have to get started. We have to help our communities. They have been waiting, waiting, waiting. Governor Cuomo, Governor Christie, Governor O'Malley have all said move it. We need help to move it. We need to.

I say there are things that came back from the House on the Senate- passed bill that I am not too excited about. They reduced the cost- share requirements for Army Corps projects. In other words, the government, the local government, will have to pay more. They reduced funding for fisheries, for flexibility to help our State Department. In a perfect world, I would seek to amend this bill and ask for a conference with the House so we could work out these differences. But even though this House bill is not perfect, it does give critical relief to the people who need it; therefore, passing this bill is my top priority.

This bill totals $50.5 billion for Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts. When combined with the $9.7 billion of flood insurance we passed earlier this month, along with assistance for Hurricane Sandy related to recovery, this bill meets the current needs of the recovery efforts and should be approved without delay.

Let me take a few minutes to discuss some of the important issues. There is $16 billion in there for community development block grant funding to restore infrastructure and housing to help people rebuild their lives. There is $11.5 billion in the FEMA disaster fund for ongoing disaster response. There is $10 billion for public transportation--particularly crucial in the New York and New Jersey area--and $5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to help protect communities along our shorelines, as well as $500 million for the social services block grants to help meet compelling human needs such as childcare, mental health services, and also for programs that will help with very damaged facilities that meet a compelling need.

As I said, Governors Cuomo and Christie have identified needs totaling billions of dollars more than this legislation provides, and that doesn't even include other States such as my own State of Maryland. The funding in this bill is urgently needed. Every dollar has been examined.

Hurricane Sandy was one of the most destructive storms to have hit the United States. Hundreds of thousands of families have seen their lives turned upside down. They have waited far too long for this legislation to reach the President. I strongly urge the support of this legislation.

This is the very first bill that, as the full chair of the Appropriations Committee, I am moving. I would like to acknowledge the role of the subcommittee chairmen because in that committee, the subcommittees really carry the bulk of the work. Senator Landrieu of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security has FEMA in her jurisdiction, and she has done an outstanding job of making sure we meet compelling human need at the same time we get value for our dollar. Senator Patty Murray chairs the subcommittee that funds housing and transportation, again making sure we are rebuilding homes and livelihoods. Senator Feinstein, whose subcommittee oversees the Army Corps of Engineers, which has been doing a heroic job keeping the Mississippi River open, wants to make sure the shorelines of New York and New Jersey and Maryland are open for business as well. I could name all of them, but those three have done an outstanding job.

I particularly wish to acknowledge the help of my colleagues from New York and New Jersey. Senator Schumer led the way, particularly when there was this difficult time with Senator Inouye's illness, to move this bill, but Senators Gillibrand, Menendez, and Lautenberg have really been outstanding.

This is about colleagues, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who helped us.

I would now like to yield the floor to Senator Landrieu, who has done such a great job through her subcommittee, and ask her to elaborate particularly on the aspects of the disaster response and recovery.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Schumer.

I appreciate the Senators from New York and New Jersey raising this issue. The language in the bill we currently have before us directs the Army Corps to conduct their study in coordination with other Federal agencies, and State, local and Tribal officials. It is the intent of Congress for the Army Corps of Engineers to adopt a multiagency approach and work in close collaboration with other relevant agencies in studying and planning for the reconstruction of the coastal areas destroyed by Superstorm Sandy. In making its supplemental funding request to Congress, the Administration specifically requested funding for an ``inter-agency planning process in conjunction with State, local, and Tribal officials, and to develop plans to address long-standing challenges and ensure the health and prosperity of the areas affected by Sandy . . . for innovative approaches to reduce the future flood risk, in ways that will promote the long-term sustainability of the coastal ecosystem and communities.'' It is our expectation that the administration would adopt that approach with the funding provided in this legislation.

The storm was one of the most devastating in our Nation's history, and the assistance that is so needed to address the widespread damage is long past due.

Yes. The funding is for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy, and since Great Lakes Federal navigation projects were damaged as a result of that storm, they would indeed be eligible.

Mr. President, we are just moments from voting on both the Lee amendment and on final passage. I rise to oppose the Lee amendment, the amendment of the junior Senator from Utah. His amendment would cut $6.3 billion from fiscal year 2013. That is $6 billion that is in addition to the $3.4 billion we already have as an offset in the bill that is charged against the Corps of Engineers, plus he wants to reduce spending by another $44 billion over an 8-year period by lowering the discretionary budget caps that were agreed to in the to 2011 Budget Control Act.

Overall, he pays for $50.5 billion in emergency aid with $51.2 billion in cuts. That is $700 million more in cuts than the disaster rate in this bill. I think that is going too far. I think when we cut more than we are going to spend, that is going too far. The $6.3 billion is an unspecified cut in discretionary programs in the middle of fiscal year 2013. It will cut national defense, it will cut law enforcement, housing assistance, agricultural assistance, and, guess what. The way it is written, it will even cut veterans' benefits, which are ordinarily viewed as mandatory spending.

This $44.9 billion is a reduction to the caps set by the Budget Control Act of 2011. For my colleagues who don't seem

to remember, we actually did pass a Budget Control Act. It says we in the Appropriations Committee will cut $1 trillion over the next 9 years. So the cap is already on us on what we could spend, and that is $100 billion a year. The Lee amendment would add even more to that.

They cannot tell us to pass a budget the way they did in the House bill on the debt limit and then say: Pass the budget. We did pass the Budget Control Act, and now the Lee amendment will shred that agreement. It will just shred it. Every time something comes up--while we are working to pass a budget--are they going to shred it?

I would like to follow what Senator Coats has talked about: Let's get back to regular order. Let's not be kind of doing cuts de jour, cuts on the fly, and who can outcut whom. Senator Coats has many good ideas in his presentation. As an appropriator and a gentleman on my committee, I look forward to working with him.

If I could just finish my remarks, and I will turn to the gentlelady from Louisiana.

Also, this amendment is terrible in terms of process. If we pass the Lee amendment, not only will it shred the Budget Control Act of 2011-- just shred it--it will then send this bill, which meets compelling human need, back to the House. The House has already shrunk this bill. It will further embroil this process, and very likely this bill may die due to some of the extreme elements in the House.

To me, the answer is obvious: Let's defeat the Lee amendment and pass this bill. There are people who are suffering in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticut. Let's acknowledge the validity of the arguments that have been raised by many Members on the other side about how we look at disaster assistance, and I am more than open to it on our committee.

I hope we can defeat the Lee amendment and pass the urgent supplemental that is pending before us even though it already has an additional $3.4 billion offset, which is essentially a cut of fiscal year 2013--cutting the Army Corps of Engineers--which, by the way, has only $5 billion. If they are going to cut, learn math and learn how to read the bills and the chart. Math is good. I like math. We are going to follow math.

With that, I ask that we pass the bill. Let's not cut more than is in the bill. Let's do the math and know we are already cutting. Let's do the job the American people want.

This concludes my remarks. But before I yield the floor to the gentlelady from Louisiana, there are two sunshine issues I am going to mention.

First, I see the return of Senator Mark Kirk. I cannot share with my colleagues the pleasure I have in seeing him. He is a member of the Appropriations Committee. We have worked together on many issues. We have disagreed, we have duked it out, and we have had some good times. It is just a pleasure to see him back on the Senate floor and ready to vote.

Also, I note that now joining us as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee is Senator Shelby of Alabama. I have worked with the Senator from Alabama over the years. I think we can pledge-- though we will differ on policy or matters--there will be more on which we can agree in this Appropriations Committee. There will be an effort for bipartisanship, civility, intellectual rigger, robust debate, and transparency. We look forward to working together and with our colleagues.

With that, I yield for the gentlelady from Louisiana.

Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana was asking me a question while I was getting a copy of my speech. What was the question?

I think it will be in very serious danger of passing because the impact of the cuts is significant, severe, even Armageddon, and it would send it back to the House for further negotiation. The House is out this week, and then they kind of come back. I think this bill very likely will die in a conference, and that cannot happen as it will affect the economy and lives of the people in our States.

I know the gentlelady has had a history of looking at how to have a more frugal and sensible government. We funded two wars on a credit card, and that is part of the reason we are in this mess. We have plenty of money to rebuild Iraq, and now we are debating and nickel- and-diming over rebuilding New York, New Jersey, parts of Connecticut, and little, poor rural parts of Maryland.

So, yes, I think it will have a terrible effect.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Rosalind ``Roz'' Gray, who is retiring from government service this month after 32 years at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda,

Mr. President, I rise to speak as to what is going on here today as the new chair of the Senate full Committee on Appropriations. That means we are the committee that actually puts money in the Federal checkbook. I would like to talk about that because, you see, today here we are on New Year's Eve doing what we should have done right after Labor Day.

We are behind the clock, and actually we are behind the thinking of the American people. They want us to come together and have sensible fiscal policies that promote growth and at the same time balance it with a new sense of frugality. The fact that we have come to this point with this culture of delay in this institution I think is really unacceptable. But I don't want to go into the culture of the institution, I want to go into actual discussions of something called sequester and spending.

The words of Washington are a foreign language. We use words that nobody understands, and we use numbers that nobody believes. I am telling you that with me, there is going to be a new day and a new way--plain talk, straight talk about what we are doing here.

So let's talk about the word ``sequester.'' Sequester literally means that you are going to--sequester stands for an arcane government word that means you are going to have automatic, across-the-board government spending cuts. These are supposed to be triggered if we don't resolve the issues today and will happen on January 2.

What is being proposed is that we would cut $110 billion in 2013--$55 billion in defense and $55 billion in nondefense. This means every single program--not programs that are dated, not programs that are bloated, not programs that might be for another era or only benefited a small group of people in a distant past, it means every single program. Yes, there will be certain exemptions to that in terms of Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, and certain things related to the military.

Since we are already 3 months into the fiscal year, the impact of these cuts will even be worse. So when you hear that we are cutting deals on the sequester, we are actually talking about government spending.

Now let's talk about cuts. This is not the first time either party has talked about cuts, nor is it the first time either party has started to talk about a sense of frugality. One party, however, wants to also understand that we need to be able to meet the compelling needs that are in the mission of our government, and we have already given at the office.

So let's talk about, oh, this could be new spending, and I don't want this. The fact is that since 2010, not 2001--let's get our zeroes straight for a change--since 2010 we have already cut domestic spending by $43 billion. We have already cut $43 billion. That is nearly 10 percent of domestic spending in just 3 years. That $43 billion was in nondefense programs.

Then there is talk about, oh, why don't we have a budget? On August 2, 2011, we passed something called the Budget Control Act. That was deemed to be the budget of the United States of America. In that Budget Control Act, they instructed those of us on the Appropriations Committee to cut discretionary spending $1 trillion over the next 10 years. The Appropriations Committee will honor the instructions of the Budget Committee, as approved by the Congress of the United States. We are on the program. We are on the same page. We are on the same glidepath. We don't have to have showdowns here.

So we have already cut actual dollars--an actual checkbook--of $43 billion. That is a lot of money. Also, in the Budget Control Act, we are to cut $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That would meet what was being discussed in Simpson-Bowles and so on, so we need to understand that.

Now let's go to this across-the-board cut. I see on the Senate floor the distinguished Senator from Arizona, a well-known advocate for our national security, well versed over the years in the compelling needs our military must have to protect the Nation. I am sure he will speak to those needs, and I will also.

But I also want to speak about another dynamic, which is the impact of $55 billion across the board in discretionary spending. What I want to say is that if, in fact, we go ahead with this, we are going to cut defense, there is no doubt about it, $55 billion, and it is going to be a meat ax. That is not the way to go, that is not the way to treat our military, and that is not the way to focus on our national security.

Secretary Panetta, along with the generals, General Dempsey, the head of the Joint Chiefs, has gone through his own budget. He has recommendations where, out of the $66 billion of defense, how we could begin to have a prudent way where we could begin to have modest reductions in the DOD account without jeopardizing national security.

I serve on the Intelligence Committee. I served with the Senator from Arizona and other distinguished people. We are going to make sure we can do this in our own way, but sequestration could really affect a variety of things related to operations and maintenance.

Let me tell you what else there is. There are many other people who defend the United States of America, and I am proud of them all. These are things such as our Federal law enforcement. With our Federal law enforcement, if we go into this meat ax approach, over 7,500 positions--because it will come out of personnel--will be affected. This could affect as many as 3,000 Federal agents--3,000 Federal agents of the FBI, DEA, and ATF. They might not be laid off, but they are going to be furloughed. They are going to have short-term furloughs. This is going to have a direct impact on morale, a direct impact on mission, and it will have a direct impact on protecting the American people, whether it is from cyber threats, border control threats--all these things they do. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agency are absolutely important.

Then the other area is in homeland security. We could reduce the mission hours at the Coast Guard by as much as 50 percent. Now, the Coast Guard is absolutely crucial when it comes to drug interdiction and also protecting our borders from our waterways.

You know, a lot of people love the Weather Channel. I love the Weather Channel too. If you watch what they do in Alaska, down in Florida, wherever they are, they are doing search and rescue and making sure drug dealers aren't using our waterways and byways to bring drugs into the country and just standing sentry and protecting the United States of America.

Again, we could talk about the border control, but then there is this whole issue of the center for health and human services. Whatever you feel about ObamaCare, that doesn't affect what goes on at the Centers for Disease Control. Right now, the Centers for Disease Control and the FDA are trying to make sure we have food safety and drug safety and are watching out to make sure there are no big outbreaks that spread.

All of us were horrified at the meningitis outbreak. We had a situation with a medical technician who went State to State--he was kind of a technician by hire--who spread terrible meningitis by injecting dirty needles into people who needed steroid injections because of their back.

So we need the FDA. We need the Centers for Disease Control. They are out there working to protect our American people. Remember, they are the ones who discovered Legionnaires' disease.

Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?

I have a commitment to the gentleman from Arizona, and I will honor that commitment both in speaking here and in dealing with these issues.

Mr. President, the point I am making is this across-the-board meat axe approach has very serious consequences. Let's use prudence and delay them, I would hope, for at least 1 year or 2 years and not a matter of weeks. But I am saying, and I promise, we do have methods for getting our spending under serious discipline.

I yield the floor, and I look forward to working with my colleagues.

Madam President, it is my understanding that we will be able to adopt a number of amendments by voice vote. In order to do that, I will call up a few more amendments now en bloc before a voice vote on the amendments.

I ask unanimous consent to call up the following amendments en bloc: Grassley No. 3348 and Feinstein No. 3421, as amended.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to vote on the following amendments en bloc: Cardin No. 3393; Grassley No. 3348; Feinstein No. 3421, as modified; Harkin No. 3426; Landrieu No. 3415; Leahy No. 3403; Coburn No. 3369; and division I of Coburn No. 3370.

Madam President, it is my understanding the Senator from

Arizona, Mr. McCain, no longer wishes to offer amendment No. 3384. Senator Bingaman of New Mexico is in line to offer the next amendment in order under the agreement, and I see he is here now to call up his amendment.

Now we will proceed to debating amendments where there was more extensive time asked. But I ask Members not to leave the Chamber. These are 4 minutes of debate, 10 minutes of debate. If we all stick together, for a change, we can all move this bill in a way we can be proud of.

I yield the floor.

I urge the amendment be adopted by voice vote.

Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, has asked that he have a chance to get his own paperwork together because he has extensive remarks. I am going to ask unanimous consent that the Coburn amendments be temporarily laid aside until he is able to return to the floor, and we will move to Tester and then return to Coburn. I believe the minority concurs, before I make my request?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Coburn amendments Nos. 3368, 3370, 3371, and 3382 be temporarily laid aside and that the Senate proceed to Tester amendment No. 3350.

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 3350

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute on the Tester amendment withdrawal.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for withdrawing his amendment.

We are mindful of the issue of fires facing western Senators. We look forward to working with Senator Tester and other colleagues affected to really deal with this problem in a sensible way that meets the needs of local communities and our serious budgetary constraints.

Mr. President, I also urge a return to regular order and ask that we move our amendments as expeditiously as we can and stick to 15-minute votes so we can get as much done as we can before we adjourn for lunch and visits to the White House. I wish to thank the minority for their excellent cooperation in doing what we have done already.

Amendment No. 3368

Mr. President, first, I would like to bring something to the attention of the Senator from Oklahoma. First, the Senator got a decimal point wrong. I feel amused correcting the Senator from Oklahoma on numbers. But if we read his amendment, it is .50, which makes it half a mile rather than 50 miles. So that is 49.5 off. But before the Senator asks consent to correct that, whether it is half a mile or 50 miles, I oppose the Senator's amendment because this amendment tries to steer fisheries disaster funding for communities only affected by citing the Stafford Act.

Limiting it to half a mile or 50 miles, fish swim big distances, as do crabs, as do lobsters, and particularly those big king crabs. Under the Senator's amendment, by talking about the Stafford Act, it actually has no bearing on fisheries.

Fisheries disasters are declared by the Secretary of Commerce according to the Federal fisheries and commerce laws at the request of Governors. Fisheries disasters are unanticipated. Under this amendment, all federally declared disaster areas would miss out on much needed financial help. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Coburn amendment.

If I might discuss with the leader and get the consent of the minority, the Senator from Oklahoma has a series of amendments. I wonder if we could debate the next amendment now, which is the Feinstein amendment, and then have two stacked votes or if the Senator just wants to follow regular order.

I ask unanimous consent that the vote on Coburn No. 3372 be laid aside, that the Senator be allowed to speak on amendment No. 3371, and then following that, we dispose of the Senator's amendment and we have two votes at the same time.

I object.

Mr. President, I just want to say to the Senator from Oklahoma, there does seem to be a dispute

in the printing. But whatever it is, we are going to get it straight. We are going to work with the Senator and function with maximum courtesy here. If we could know whether we are taking about half a mile or 50 miles--

Mr. President, I ask the clerk to clarify, is it half a mile or 50 miles?

To the Senator from Oklahoma, I apologize. I am sorry for the delay. We will move forward to further debate on the second amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes at 2 p.m., we debate the next two Coburn amendments in order and that upon the use or yielding back of time on those amendments, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Coburn amendments, with all provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, simply what this means is this--and I am really asking for Senators to pay attention because they are very keenly interested in the schedule. I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, for working on the expeditious disposition of our amendments.

Senators should be aware that after 2 p.m., they should be in the Chamber to vote on these amendments. These are 10-minute votes, and we do not intend to hold the votes beyond the time. The leadership on both sides of the aisle will be going to the White House to discuss the really critical, crucial matters before the Nation. They must go to the White House, but they will want to exercise their vote. So let's cooperate with the leadership.

At 2 o'clock, Senator Coburn will make his debate. We will have an orderly, crisp rebuttal. Then we will go right to those votes, and then the leadership will be able to leave for the White House. Remember, we have to have that first vote done in a timely way so that both Senator Reid and Senator McConnell can leave to have the designated meeting with President Obama.

Mr. President, let's go with the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I oppose Coburn amendment No. 3383 striking the provisions in the underlying bill.

We did a voice vote this morning on Feinstein amendment No. 4421 that fixes the problem. I understand the concerns the Senator has.

I yield time to the Senator from California to explain how she fixed the amendment and why we should defeat the Coburn amendment.

Mr. President, this will give Senators an idea about the

order for the next hour or so. I ask unanimous consent that the debate time on the Rand Paul, John McCain, and Lee amendments occur between now and 3:30 p.m.; that at 4 p.m., the Senate resume votes in relation to the amendments as listed in the previous order; that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; and all other provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Mr. President, with this agreement, we will be ready to resume our stacked series of votes on this bill at 4 p.m. I just want to alert my colleagues, with the concurrence on the other side of the aisle, there will only be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote, so Senators need to remain in and around the Chamber so we can complete action on this legislation.

If we can keep the amendments to the time agreement that is usual and customary, we will be able to conclude--our time this evening could be spent because the votes go on too long--so if we can follow regular order, the way we have been doing, I think we will be able to move all our amendments.

I want to thank Senators Paul, McCain, and Lee, who are ready to offer their amendments now.

Mr. President, is there any time remaining in opposition to the Paul amendment?

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

I would like to thank the Senator from South Carolina for his remarks. He summarizes what we on both sides of the aisle would say about this compelling national security interest.

I also wish to bring to my colleagues' attention--the Senator from Kentucky reduces the bill from $60 billion to $9 billion. Not only is it a disaster for our foreign aid, but it is a disaster for America. Remember, disaster assistance is aid to American people. So cutting out $51 billion and then poking in the eye of treasured allies that you are reducing by $50 billion--that is aid to America.

Hey, I am for aid to America, and that is why spending and working with

treasured allies, their security, and also stamping out things such as malaria and blindness are the things for which we are well known.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the regular order here?

Is there any time remaining for the Paul amendment?

So we have concluded Paul amendment No. 3410.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation in time on Paul amendment No. 3376, Davis-Bacon?

Mr. President, with all time having expired, I believe the order requires that these amendments then be set aside to be part of a set of stacked votes at 4 o'clock; is that correct?

Don't we now proceed to the McCain amendment under the consent agreement, for debate? It was to be Senator McCain or Senator Lee?

Mr. President, I note the prompt appearance of Senator Lee.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator will withhold, the next amendment under our agreement was Senator McCain. He will be here in 5 minutes, so the Senator may proceed.

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

Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Arizona for coming to the floor and debating this amendment because it means we can move our bill in an expeditious way. I wish we could be solving the issues around the fiscal cliff with such civility, watchful rigor, and a commitment to the taxpayer.

Having said that, however, I rise to oppose the Senator's amendment. The Emergency Forest Restoration Program was established after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It does help owners of private forest land carry out emergency measures to restore land damaged by a natural disaster. This is not just trees falling. It has recently been used to provide assistance to tornado damaged land across the Southeast: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas. As the Senator from Maryland, the Presiding Officer, knows, when a hurricane hits, people, homes, and landscape are uprooted.

The program provides a 75-percent cost share for the work. The landowner has to provide the other 25 percent. In order to participate in this program, there must be an onsite inspection to determine the type and extent of damage caused by the disaster, and it must show that the damage, if untreated, would endanger our natural resources or materially affect the future use of land around it.

If the physical inspection determines this land qualifies for the program, funding can be provided to remove damaged timber, clean up the damaged trees, and take those activities to prevent future forest fires that can certainly spread beyond the private forest. In the long run, some of these issues, if not controlled, could cause much greater damage and cost much more money.

Funding for this program was included in the administration request for the supplemental, but it is limited only to Sandy. We are not doing this as a new program that will occur in every disaster. Just as we did for Katrina and for Rita, the bill was done for that. This would be limited only to those geographic areas affected by Hurricane Sandy.

Historically, when disaster supplementals are considered, funding to eliminate the full EFRP backlog was included. This practice has been historically supported by both sides of the aisle. We hope it is continued in this bill. I respectfully urge all Senators to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, we are moving very well on this bill, and we expect to have votes on these amendments when our colleagues return from the White House beginning shortly, around 4 o'clock. We note there is another Senator who wishes to speak, but I, both in terms of the chair of the full committee as well as the Senator from Maryland, along with my colleague presiding, do want to speak about this supplemental.

As we are drawing to a close with very few amendments left, I hope my colleagues will pass this supplemental appropriations and view it urgently. In Maryland, we were hit in Hurricane Sandy. We were hit in two ways. No. 1, a hurricane on the Eastern Shore and up and down the Chesapeake Bay, over 2,500 miles of shoreline, the Maryland part of the bay, the big bay, the inlets, the coves, the peninsulas--all of which were vulnerable during Hurricane Sandy. Parts of our lower shore were absolutely devastated.

While we were fighting the ravages of the hurricane and the wind and the rain, up in western Maryland it took the turn that it was a blizzard, a blizzard in western Maryland. Mr. President, you received the same calls I did, county commissioners saying the roads were blocked, 90 percent of the power was down. The National Guard had to be called out because only they had the muscle vehicles to clear the roads so the emergency power could get in. State Troopers were rescuing people on snowmobiles and down in the lower shore they were going in, in swift boats, to pull out the elderly and other vulnerable populations. It was just awful.

As the storm moved up and down the coast, community after community-- small like ours, large like New York City--was pounded and pounded by this devastating hurricane. All of America watched. We all held our breath. We all feared the worst and we saw the worst. At the same time, we saw the indomitable spirit of the American people hanging on to their home, praying for their livelihood.

While all that was going on, the President visited the Governors on both sides of the aisle to say you have the United States of America behind you. The United States of America being behind you, whether you are Governor O'Malley or Governor Christie or Governor Cuomo or the other Governors, means we need to pass this bill. We want to pass it because we know that lives were devastated and livelihoods were ruined.

In Maryland, we faced these unique challenges: hurricane, blizzards, urban and rural communities affected. In our own lower shore, Somerset County was hit.

That has one of the highest unemployment rates in the State, close to 10 percent; 18 percent of the residents live below a line of $35,000 a year. What I said then and what I say now: They were rich in community spirit, but they don't always have a lot of cash. Why? Because their jobs are in agriculture, seafood--industries that were hard hit by the decline in species, drought, and high fuel prices.

Families live in the same house for one, two, and three generations. An appraiser might come by and wonder what the value is of that house. If a family inherited the house from their mom, dad, or grandpa--some families go back to the days of the Underground Railroad--that house means something to that family. How do we restore them? How do we get the mold out? How do we get them back and functioning? Well, that is what this bill is all about.

You and I fought tooth and nail to get our State the assistance it needed--not only our State but the other States as well--because we are the United States of America. We hit some bureaucratic roadblocks along the way, but thanks to the President and Mr. Fugate, the Administrator for FEMA--and, wow, didn't he do a good job--and the creativity of Shaun Donovan at

HUD, we all felt we were in it together. I thank them for their work.

What does that mean? Just in Somerset County alone, 619 people have applied for individual assistance. They were eligible for about $1 million. When we are talking about all of this money, $1 million might not mean a lot in the Federal budget, but it sure meant a lot in the Somerset County family budget.

I am proud of what I did in working with you to help do this, and I am really proud of what our colleagues have done with their work on this legislation. We have outstanding subcommittee chairs, and I will talk about this in the wrap-up. They did a great job under President Obama's leadership, and the executive branch functioned in a prime-time way. Now it is up to us to function in a prime-time way and to move this bill.

The supplemental package provides well-tailored resources. Yes, there was $11.5 billion for the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund and $17 billion in community development block grants for the restoration of infrastructure and housing, lives and livelihoods, and so the Corps of Engineers can repair and rebuild projects along the shorelines. These are the kinds of things this money will be used for. It is not to be spent on bureaucracy but on the restoration and recovery. It will actually put people to work rebuilding their communities.

Now, we might want to talk about how we don't want to spend money on foreign aid, but I sure want to spend money on American aid. I want to rebuild America, and I want to talk about things such as an infrastructure bank another time. Right now, we have an opportunity to come to the aid of fellow Americans, who in many instances are quite desperate, to restore those communities and do the kind of infrastructure we need in order to rebuild physical infrastructure and, I might add, emotional infrastructure.

I strongly support this legislation that I bring before the Senate today. I ask that my colleagues join me in moving it forward. At the end of the day, if we pass this bill, it will be a better day for all of those who were so hard hit by Hurricane Sandy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Texas will yield for a moment, I don't want the gavel to come down during her presentation.

We were scheduled to resume votes at 4 o'clock. I wish to ask unanimous consent for the Senator from Texas to finish her statement and then Senator Leahy be recognized to make a few remarks. We know the leadership is on their way back from the White House. So I ask unanimous consent that votes resume at 4:15 after the Senator from Texas completes her remarks and after the Senator from Vermont speaks for a few minutes to debate the Rand Paul amendment.

I am right here.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be allowed to finish his statement.

Regular order.

Amendment No. 3376

Mr. President, on our side, we yield all time back and are ready to proceed to a vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

What day?

Mr. President, a point of clarification for our colleagues, if Members could understand: We are going to vote on the McCain amendment now and then we have four more amendments.

Mr. President, I stand corrected. So Senators can plan their time--I know it is of the essence--we have, upon the disposition of the McCain amendment, two other amendments--Merkley in agriculture and Coats on the Republican alternative.

Then we have the Reid substitute, which we believe will be a voice vote. Then we will go to final passage.

So we have two amendments. We will have four votes, one of which we think is a voice. So everybody knows--don't go off. Don't go off. Also, when we have the votes, if we can stick to the 10 minutes, it will enable us to complete the disposition of the bill.

I yield the floor and recommend we follow the regular order on the amendment of Senator McCain.

I will yield back the time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for 1 minute to be able to respond to what the Senator from Oregon just did.

I just want to say to the Senator from Oregon, and all the other Senators who face agricultural disasters, we on the Appropriations Committee would like to work with the Senator. This is compelling human need--your disaster, my fisheries disaster. We have to have a way of working together. We want to acknowledge the validity of the Senator's concern.

The Senate has spoken on a budget point of order. But we do want to work with the Senator and work with our authorizers so we do not have our agricultural interests hanging out there.

So I thank the Senator for his efforts. The Senate has spoken on this amendment. Let's see what we can do together.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask for the regular order.

Amendment No. 3391

Mr. President, I understand we will now be going to the Reid substitute; is that correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Frank Lautenberg be added as a cosponsor to the Reid substitute.

Mr. President, our side yields back all time.

Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

The substitute amendment has been amended, and now, as I understand the order, we will move to final passage.

Mr. President, as we now move to final passage on this bill, I believe Senator Cochran and I, on a bipartisan basis, could wrap up our statements.

Mr. President, we are now moving to final passage, and I know this bill will provide immediate relief to our constituents. I urge the adoption of the bill.

I thank Senator Cochran, the ranking member on this bill, for his courtesy.

I want to say to my colleagues that Senator Inouye would have been really proud of the way we acted today. We acted with civility, and we acted with crispness and promptness. We did the people's business. He would really be proud of us, and I am proud of all of you. I thank my subcommittees' chairs--Senators Landrieu, Murray, Leahy, Feinstein, and Harkin--for the great work they did and Senators Schumer, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Menendez for the way they helped with the heavy lifting. To the able staff of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Charlie Houy and the subcommittee clerks, again a heartfelt thanks. But the real thanks would be passage of the bill and making sure we are meeting the compelling human needs of our fellow citizens.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and yeas.

Mr. President, following up Leader Reid's comments, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you have these amendments, Senator Schumer and I would like to know. We will stay here to offer and debate them, as you were accorded under the unanimous consent agreement. If you come up and tell Senator Schumer and me now, we can get an order and sequence and tell you when we will call you up. Instead of everybody standing around, we would actually get a regular order and you would know when your amendments are coming up and what order you are coming up so that you could plan your evening. Please see Senator Schumer and me, and we will work with you to accomplish this.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of H.R. 1, the legislative vehicle for the Hurricane Sandy supplemental.

Mr. President, I would like to give a sense of the order of amendments so Senators may plan their time.

We are now back on the supplemental bill, and we have great cooperation in getting the pending amendments and debate done this evening so we could actually start voting tomorrow morning.

So that Senators can have an understanding of how we will start our work this evening, I want to lay out a bit of the schedule. This is not a unanimous consent request. It is kind of an outline.

Our intention is to have the following amendments called up after I yield the floor: Senator Cardin to be recognized to call up his amendment No. 3393; Senator Tester to be recognized for up to 2 minutes to call up his amendment No. 3350; Senator Landrieu to be recognized for up to 2 minutes to call up her amendment No. 3415; Senator Coburn to be recognized for up to 30 minutes to call up his six amendments: Nos. 3368; 3369; 3370, as modified; 3371; 3382; and 3383; following that, Senator Merkley to be recognized for up to 5 minutes to call up his amendment No. 3367; and then I have a few I will call up on behalf of other Senators.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, wait. Before the Senator from Montana speaks, why don't we voice vote the amendment now.

Would the Chair withhold?

There seems to be--Mr. President, if we could have order, I think it would be helpful for us.

The Senator from Maryland may proceed.

Replying to the Senator from Oklahoma, for those amendments we know we have cleared on both sides of the aisle that we can do by voice votes or by consent, we are going to get those done this evening.

Does the Senator have an objection to that?

Senator Cardin's amendment No. 3393 will be voted on tomorrow.

Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 3350 proposed by Senator Tester. These funds are needed because the agency predicts it will spend more to fight these fires in fiscal year 2013, causing severe hardship on the agency.

I say to the Senator, we have been advised that we will not be voice voting amendments tonight.

But I want to just comment that we support the Landrieu amendment No. 3415, which clarifies the intent of section 609(e) of the pending amendment to provide FEMA reimbursements for the first responders. This amendment clarifies the intent that first responders can be reimbursed for wages during a disaster response. But it does not change the conditions of reimbursement that already aid an effective disaster response.

We do want to reinforce that both the International Association of Fire Fighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs support this amendment.

At such time a vote is taken, I will urge a ``yes'' vote.

Yes. I wish to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for being willing to debate these amendments

this evening. I know he has a pressing engagement, and he may proceed in whatever order he so chooses.

Again, I wish to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for offering all those amendments.

I would like to comment on Coburn 3370, division 1 on the tax cheats. I certainly want to compliment him on that amendment. Every single Senator wants to prevent tax cheaters from receiving any funding in this bill. I am for all of those prohibitions on tax cheats. I carry a similar provision in my usual customary Commerce-Justice bill.

The Senator from Oklahoma also was very tentative about modifying it, but he still covers the tax cheats, and also dead people can't get Federal funds. The Senator modified it to cover funeral expenses. But we are also being told that this--by the Finance Committee--that this amendment is not a blue slip issue.

I support the Senator's amendment, and if it is agreeable with the Senator from Oklahoma, on this side, we would like to take his amendment tonight.

Now on the fisheries part, we don't take the fisheries part.

I oppose the division 2, the fisheries amendment. I understand the Senator's intention, but his point is that he tries to say that fishery disaster funding should be for communities affected primarily by Stafford Act requirements. The Stafford Act covers FEMA- certified disasters. So in order to get help from FEMA, which is governed by the Stafford Act, it has to be certified by the President.

Fisheries are different because fisheries are covered under an agency called NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. It is under the Department of Commerce. So if you think you have a fisheries disaster, you take that to the Secretary of Commerce, who has an explicit criteria in order to qualify. You just can't say: Well, I don't have the fish I used to. Oh, my lobster pots are a little rusty. No. You have to have real criteria that you have been hit. Therefore, you cannot get fisheries assistance unless a fishery disaster has been declared by the Secretary of Commerce.

Fishery disasters are necessary and urgent. Coastal fisheries, our coastal communities--our fisheries are part of their identity, and they are certainly part of our economy. They certainly are in my State. And those are the disasters that are covered here. So I hope the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is defeated.

His other amendments, I could comment upon, but I didn't know if the gentlelady from Louisiana, who chairs the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, of which FEMA is a member--I presume she would want to comment on the Senator's amendment.

Did I inadvertently interrupt you?

Mr. President, I seek recognition to rebut the Coburn amendment and also to offer two amendments. But before I do, I just wish to thank my colleagues, particularly those who have amendments. I wish to thank them for their cooperation and being willing to offer them and speak tonight, on both sides of the aisle.

I would also note the Senator from New York and the Senator from Connecticut also wish to speak. Senators whose States have been very hard hit should have the opportunity to speak, and I am going to take my rebuttal of the Coburn amendments and just abbreviate them.

With the exception of being willing to accept the amendment where you cannot get emergency assistance if you are a tax cheater or if you passed away, with the exception of a funeral benefit, I object to the Coburn amendments. My objections have been so well articulated by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, and by the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Coburn amendment No. 3369. This amendment makes no sense. It would require the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development to make public any grant announcement three days before either department announces the grant. In other words, do something three days before you are going to do it.

I understand the Senator's intent, which is to eliminate the ability of Members to have a brief advance notice of pending grant announcements. However, in trying to weaken Congress' legitimate oversight role, the amendment overreaches. More importantly, I don't agree with this effort to cede Congress' role in these notifications. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, not everything in the Senator's amendment No. 3371 is objectionable. Unfortunately, it is loaded down with at least two provisions that make it impossible to support related to FEMA efforts to aid disaster victims and help communities rebuild.

First, returning funds appropriated in this bill that have not been obligated and spent within two years to the Treasury is unreasonable. FEMA will of course obligate the funds provided in this bill in less than two years. However, spending the funds to complete the rebuilding of schools, hospitals, police stations, surge barriers, floodgates, and levees will take longer. Communities will need time to do the proper planning, competently bid for projects, fulfill State action plans, do site selection and development, complete audits and then request for the federal government to reimburse the eligible costs in the right amount. To do this responsibly and within the bounds of proper oversight, it will take more than two years to reimburse the eligible expenditures.

On the one hand, the Senator wants FEMA to spend the money faster while on the other hand he imposes more restrictive and time consuming Federal standards for competition.

The second objectionable provision in this amendment is to cap FEMA's recovery assistance to States at 75 percent of the costs of damages. This ties the hands of the Nation to support the needs of the victims of the most severe disasters.

The Stafford Act currently requires that FEMA provide assistance at 75 percent of the cost of the recovery. However, in cases where damages have proven to be extremely severe FEMA can increase its share to 90 percent. The adjustment to 90 percent is based on an objective formula that considers per capita damage, which must reach over $131 per person. The threshold is difficult for states to reach unless they experience a severe event.

I oppose this amendment.

Amendment No. 3382

This amendment would require merit-based and competitive awards of disaster recovery contracts. This amendment would prohibit the use of any disaster funds for contracts not competitively awarded pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation FAR. This would appear unnecessary, because the FAR already limits non-competitive contracts to one year, in general.

The amendment would also require a review of disaster recovery contracts that were awarded prior to enactment of the Supplemental that weren't competitively bid. For any contracts not competitively bid, agencies would be required to achieve cost savings or to award a new competitive contract, and discontinue the original contract.

The requirement for retroactive review of contracts that were awarded before the date of enactment for which other than competitive procedures were used for the purpose of determining if additional cost savings can be achieved or whether a new contract should be pursued would pose a significant burdensome and disruptive task.

The amendment would require hiring up additional contracting staff to handle the ``looking back review'' and potential ``re-competition'' envisioned in order for the current staff to contract for the supplies and services needed to respond to and recover from Hurricane Sandy. Since there is a limited number of contracting officers available to Federal agencies, complying with this provision, should it be enacted, has the very real potential to limit DHS's ability to meet ongoing mission requirements.

Furthermore, no date or parameters are established for conducting and completing these reviews, so agencies would not know how far back to review. One could assume the amendment means only those currently operating contracts, but it does not specify.

For those agencies in the midst of recovery efforts for Hurricane Sandy, is the intent that they stop ongoing efforts (to include obligating those additional funds that are coming) to undertake such a review? How can the workforce still supporting the disaster be handling the ongoing efforts to support the disaster and at the same time be reviewing what they did in November?

Complying with this mandate, should it be enacted, has the very real potential to adversely impact the Government's ability to meet their ongoing disaster recovery missions.

This amendment requires agencies to terminate contracts if cost savings can be realized. The burden of the analysis alone would be daunting especially since no threshold is specified. This amendment would require agencies to review even purchase card orders. Terminating contracts for convenience is not inexpensive--there significant administrative costs, and it is labor-intensive.

This amendment would be onerous and costly and will hinder the recovery and repair effort. Therefore, Mr. President, I recommend that this amendment be opposed.

Amendment No. 3383

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 3383. The proviso that my friend proposes to strike authorizes projects for the Corps to construct that would reduce the impacts from flooding and provide storm damage reduction. I agree with my friend that the provision that he proposed to strike could be read as overly broad and authorized projects for construction that were not intended nor could they be constructed with the amount of funding that was provided.

Senators Feinstein and Boxer have addressed the shortcoming of that provision by striking it with an earlier amendment--No. 3421 and replacing it with new text. This new text no longer authorizes an undefined set of projects. Rather, it directs funding to be utilized to construct projects in areas that suffered direct inundation impacts from

Hurricanes Sandy and Isaac. This provides a defined scope for the work that the Corps can construct with the funds provided.

The provision requires that the projects to be undertaken must be cost effective, technically feasible and environmentally acceptable. I think my friend would agree that should be the goal of all of the Corps projects that we fund. Voting for this amendment would undo the defined requirements and scope for these projects that we previously voted for.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Amendment No. 3370

Mr. President, I oppose Division 2 of amendment No. 3370. Division 2 of this amendment tries to steer fishery disaster funding for communities only affected by Hurricane Sandy by citing Stafford Act requirements and limiting funding for area within \1/2\ mile from shore.

But the Stafford Act overseas disasters on land. The Act has absolutely no bearing on fishery disasters, fishery disasters are declared by the Secretary of Commerce according to Federal Fishery and Commerce laws at the request of the State Governors.

Fishery disaster needs are necessary, urgent, unanticipated and these coastal fisheries are not bound by some arbitrary \1/2\ mile boundary.

Under this amendment all federally declared fishery disasters would miss out on much needed financial assistance, even those communities affect by Hurricane Sandy. Fishery disaster funding is not just about fixing damaged boats and waterfronts. It is about rebuilding smarter fisheries so that businesses and coastal communities stand a better shot of avoiding future disasters. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, in the interest of time, I think we all agree why the very intent to save money by adding delay and bureaucracy will cost money and will cost time, in terms of getting people back on their feet, both in their home and in their livelihood. Remember what we seek: helping people get their life back and helping them get their livelihood back. I think that has been very well articulated.

I would now also like to take the opportunity to call up and dispose of two amendments.

Amendment No. 3403

I call up, on behalf of Senator Leahy, amendment No. 3403.

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

Mr. President, this amendment simply provides authority to the State Department to transfer up to approximately $1 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds appropriated in Fiscal Year 2012 for operations. in Iraq, which are no longer needed in Iraq due to reduced operations there, and to use these funds for increased security at U.S. embassies and other overseas posts identified in the Department's security review after the Benghazi attack.

Making additional funds available for these purposes is one of the recommendations of the Accountability Review Board chaired by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen.

The amendment permits the transfer of funds between the Diplomatic and Consular Programs and Embassy Security Construction and Maintenance accounts, which would otherwise be precluded due to percentage limitations on such transfers.

According to CBO the amendment has no outlay scoring impact.

We all want to do what we can to prevent another tragedy like what occurred in Benghazi. The State Department has done a review, and these funds will be used to expedite construction of Marine security guard posts at overseas posts, and to build secure embassies in Beirut, Lebanon and Harare, Zimbabwe.

There is nothing controversial about this amendment. These are existing funds. There is no new appropriation. The amendment has no scoring impact. It is simply a matter of allowing unobligated, prior year funds to be used for a different purpose of higher priority-- protecting our diplomats stationed in dangerous places around the world.

That amendment will be voted on tomorrow.

Amendment No. 3426 to Amendment No. 3395

Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of Senator Harkin. I call up amendment No. 3426.

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

Mr. President, this amendment makes two very technical corrections that are necessary for proper implementing of funding for the Department of Health and Human Services in the supplemental. First, it deletes the term ``response activities for hurricane Sandy'' and replaces it with ``the purposes provided herein.'' That is a small verbal change but ``response activities'' has a limited meaning. This change does clarify that funds may also be used to cover additional recovery and related costs connected to Hurricane Sandy. Second, it adds the phrase ``to make grants'' to clarify that the Department of HHS has specific grant-making authority for renovating, repairing, and rebuilding non-Federal facilities involved in NIH research. For example, an academic center of excellence, well known for its work, particularly in cancer research, will have the opportunity to rebuild.

I recommend support of this amendment. Senator Shelby has signed off on it. I believe it is not controversial. CBO says it does not score at all, and I understand the minority staff on the Labor-HHS Appropriations Committee has also signed off on those changes.

Mr. President, that amendment, too, will be voted on tomorrow if not accepted. Tonight we are just not accepting amendments and we are not voice voting them.

I also want to note we have two Members on the floor whose States were hard hit. One is the Senator from New York about whom Senator Schumer has spoken. I know Senator Gillibrand wishes to speak. The order we will follow is Senator Gillibrand will speak for such time as she may consume to be followed by the Senator from Connecticut and such time as he may consume in speaking on behalf of the bill.

Before the Senator speaks, though, a word to the Senator from Connecticut. Connecticut has been hit twice--first by the hurricane and then by what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary. For those of us who join with you, we just want the people of Connecticut to know they are not alone. As the Senator from New Jersey who spoke earlier said, you know we are the United States of America. Where there was a disaster in one State, we all have to respond as if it were a disaster in all States. The attack on one child in Connecticut--we have to protect all children, in Connecticut and in every single State in this Union. I hope, as we find those solutions, we do act as a union, the United States of America.

Once again, our sympathy and condolences, and I yield the floor to these very able Senators.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the critical sections of that act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to speak. I just need to essentially object to his point of order. I do this because although I know he is indeed well intentioned--Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. This is an important precedent that could be set, and I would like Members not to talk.

I want them to more than be quiet. We are talking about a precedent in the Senate, so I would like, please, if Senators could take their conversations either in the back or off the floor.

Mr. President, the reason I am so insistent is, No. 1, the decorum of the Senate; and No. 2, this is a dangerous precedent. If this point of order is sustained, it will mean $3.4 billion of urgent disaster relief in this supplemental has to be offset in future appropriations bills. This will mean real consequences this year.

Now, in a $1 trillion budget and the way we talk about money $3.4 billion might not seem like a lot, but it does mean a lot in disaster assistance, and it does mean a lot to the Appropriations Committee. This is a $3.4 billion unspecified cut that will go to domestic programs for fiscal year 2013.

I wish to remind my colleagues we are in a 6-month CR now, so this means right in the middle of a CR, until March, we have to take out an additional $3.4 billion. This will have a terrible impact on domestic programs, and it is a dangerous precedent. We have never offset disaster assistance, and I urge the adoption of my position.

I yield to the Senator from New York whose community is suffering, and he has done an able job in helping to manage this bill.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable section of that act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I know the hour is late and there are Members who want to go home. We have been through an emotional roller coaster here in the Senate, as has the Nation. One week ago we saw this terrible, horrific shooting in Connecticut. While the Nation mourned what happened there, we mourn here in the Senate because of the passing of Senator Inouye. Yet the work of Senator Inouye went on through the urgent supplemental.

I would like to thank the Senator from New York for helping with the management of this bill, as well as the Senator from Vermont and Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, who have all done good work.

Dan Inouye

We Senators know we are only as good as our staff. As the Inouye era goes through its transition, I would like to thank the Inouye staff first of all for everything they have done on this bill. I thank the Inouye staff for all they did in staffing for truly one of the great icons in the Senate. Now, do not think the Inouye staff is going to go away under Barbara Mikulski. I want to publicly thank them on behalf of all of the Senate that they held their own emotions in control so we could move forward with the Senate business. That is what professional staff is. They are the highest and the best of the best. I think the Senate owes them a debt of gratitude. I will lean on them to be back here on Thursday to move this bill in regular order.

I want to just end today's proceedings by saying God bless Senator Inouye and all that he meant to America, and God bless the staff, who has helped him be one of the greatest Senators in American history.

Yes.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders.) The pending business is H.R. 1.

Mr. President, I rise and ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I just wanted to come to the floor--I know other Senators are speaking--to say to the rest of my colleagues and to many people who have expressed interest, the Democratic caucus has just confirmed me to be the full chair of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee.

I take the floor today to announce that with great humility. I am filling the footsteps of Senator Danny Inouye, who was indeed a giant among men, a war hero, and an advocate for social justice, national security, and a compassionate government.

I want to just say to my colleagues, as I assume this chairmanship, I look forward to working with each and every Member of the Senate, both within my own caucus and across the aisle, to have a committee that functions on a bipartisan basis.

The Appropriations Committee is a constitutionally mandated committee. The Appropriations Committee is governed by the Constitution of the United States, by the laws of the land, and by the rules of the Senate. Under the Constitution, the Founding Fathers said every year there should be a review of the annual Federal expenditures. That is what our committee will do. We will bring forward legislation that will show what are the expenditures of the United States Government, what we propose to be ratified by the full Senate.

We will do it, first of all, on a bipartisan basis. One of the first calls I received when I knew this honor would come to be chair was to reach across the aisle to Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, my good friend and colleague who is now the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, to reach out to him, as I did in a phone call. And I say publicly today that when we look at how we are going to spend the money and how we are going to meet our national security needs--but our compelling human needs in this country, and public investment in our children, in our future, and how to promote our economy--we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. I want to thank Senator Shelby because he assured me of his cooperation to do so.

Our committee will function in a way that is open, transparent, and we wish to follow the regular order. What we want to do in following the regular order is to ask our colleagues to join with us so that we move the urgent supplemental which so many American people are depending on us to pass, this legislation to meet the needs of individual assistance to restore homes, lives and livelihoods.

It is going to be a new day in the Appropriations Committee, but we are going to follow old-school values of the men who went before us: Dan Inouye, Ted Stevens, men who fought in World War II to defend America. They stood on this Senate floor to defend the Constitution. They spoke for their States. That is what we are going to do. I want everyone to know, we also will want to ensure that our spending reflects our values to protect our country, to protect vulnerable populations, and to also prepare America for the future.

I will have more to say about all of this at a later time. I just wanted to say, I take this not as an honor but as a great responsibility. I am so appreciative of the caucus that confirmed me. I am very appreciative of the way Members of the other side of the aisle also reached out.

If we take the time to listen to each other, to respect each other and listen to the needs of the people, we can work to get more bang out of the buck, get more value for the dollar. We can have a strong economy, a safer country. We can be frugal without being heartless.

At the same time, we can assure the taxpayers we have heard them. They want us to do a better job with our spending, but at the same time they want to see it in an open process. I just wanted to come to the floor to say that.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I would like to compliment the Senator from Montana on his deeply moving and so personal reminiscences. It was both touching and manly. Thank you very much. It was inspirational.

Hurricane Sandy

Madam President, I come to the floor--and I am so glad the Senator from New York is the Presiding Officer--because here we are, the Chamber is vacant. It looks like the Senate is not moving. The Presiding Officer is a Senator from New York, along with Senator Schumer. I am a Senator from Maryland, and we have been hit by a hurricane. We have been hit by Hurricane Sandy.

I come to the floor to say, as we reflect on the life and times of Senator Danny Inouye, we should also reflect on his work, which is to move appropriations bills in a timely way--and particularly when that appropriations bill deals with the supplemental appropriations to meet the compelling human needs of our communities and our people when they have suffered a natural disaster.

The clock is ticking. We have businesses that need to restart. We have homes that need to be rebuilt. In my own State of Maryland, we had a double whammy. As the hurricane came forth on our coastal areas along the beloved Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, we were hit by the hurricane. Then up in western Maryland, Garrett County, called the Switzerland of Maryland, we were hit by a blizzard--a blizzard.

Where are we now? It has been days. The TV cameras have left, but the compelling human need has not.

What is the Senate facing? Inertia, parliamentary roadblocks, and we are fussing about the budget. I believe we need to have a more frugal, sensible government, but these are the American people. Sometimes I am for helping other nations around the world, but after a natural disaster, while we have been busy rebuilding Afghanistan, how about if we rebuild New York, New Jersey. How about getting my communities up and running along the coast of the Chesapeake Bay and communities such as Crisfield. These people are not asking for a handout; they are asking for a hand up. These are the American citizens who pay their taxes on time. Then why doesn't the Senate act on time? I am deeply frustrated by the inertia and the parliamentary roadblocks for nothing.

Look what this would mean. We could show hope and help. Actually, along the way, the very things we will do will be creating jobs in the local community because this is physical reconstruction--and, I might add, the reconstruction of human lives.

The Senator from New York knows so well; she told me the moving stories of the firefighters themselves, our gallant first responders who suffered terrible fires in their own home communities. What a horrible thing. I know if the Presiding Officer came over with me to the Eastern Shore and went down to the community of Crisfield, she would be touched. This is a wonderful community, but they have had some hard times. They have a 94-percent unemployment rate. Our agriculture and our seafood industries have been hit by drought and declining species. Our industries have been hard hit. In these rural areas, these homes have been in these communities for generation after generation after generation.

The western shore lobbyists who come in or appraisers who are looking for Gucci waterfront property might value these small, tidy, well- maintained homes for appraisal value, but the appraisal was in the hearts of my people of Crisfield. Generations have lived there. Generations have worked there. Generations have sent their sons to fight the wars--and now their daughters. All they want is for their country to help them rebuild, get the mold out, get some assistance coming in so they can buy their crab pots and get back to work. They want their homes. They want to get their lives back, and they want to get their livelihoods back.

What do we have here? Inertia.

When all is said and done, I am very tired that more gets said than gets done. This is the time to act. My constituents truly need help, and we have been here.

I am going to congratulate Senator Murray and Senator Landrieu, who chair the subcommittees in Appropriations on FEMA and THUD because it will be FEMA money and community development block grant money that will help these communities. Now we are going to need the Corps of Engineers for beach replenishment, public investments that will protect private property. It has been 2 months since Sandy, 2 months. Surely, we can act.

The President has made a request. Yes, it is a hefty $60 billion. But look at who was hit, a big city that is one of the heartbeats of America, New York, and a little community such as Crisfield. But no matter whether someone lives in New York City or in Crisfield, MD, they deserve the help from their government.

I say to my colleagues, let us think of the people we were sent to represent. We weren't sent to represent a bottom line; we were sent to represent people. I would hope we would put into place, that we would pass the President's request. We have great policies that were arrived at--and if you truly want to honor Senator Inouye, let us honor his own code of conduct, a gentle way, a civil way, a consensus builder, a bipartisan builder, and a worker to move this bill.

Senator Inouye chaired the full Committee on Appropriations these last couple years. His own staff shared a story with me, and it is relevant today.

He said: I chaired the Defense subcommittee, and that is how the Federal budget defends America. But my other committees, like Labor- HHS--and I might add housing, Federal disaster assistance--is how we define ourselves. So those who say let us make sure we defend America, let us also make sure we put the money in the Federal budget on how it defines America.

The way we define America is when one community is hit, all communities are hit. If New York is hit, Crisfield or Ocean City, all communities have been hit. We need to act like the United States of America because the disaster the Chair and I faced 2 months ago could be somebody else's disaster tomorrow. And the real disaster should not be in the Senate because we failed to act.

I call my colleagues to the floor, and I call them forth to pass these appropriations. I look forward again to working on both sides of the aisle to have a safer country from either a defense or a disaster perspective, and I also look forward to moving this bill in a way that we will define our country, that we are a country that helps, neighbor helping neighbor.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senators from New England, and I am happy to answer the question and join here with my fellow coastal Senators.

First, I would like to respond in my official responsibility in the Senate, which is to chair the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science. It is in that subcommittee that the NOAA--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency--is funded. It is there that the fisheries money is spent. Any fishery disaster, in order to qualify for Federal assistance, must be certified by the Secretary of Commerce. Every single fisheries disaster in this bill has been certified by the Secretary of Commerce to meet compelling human need, economic necessity, and be within the criteria established by law.

The Senator from Oklahoma, well-intentioned, is asking us to violate the law. He wants to make fisheries disasters under the Stafford Act. The Stafford Act, named after the Senator from New Hampshire--a wonderful Republican--was for FEMA. If you think you have a FEMA disaster, you go to the Governor. There has to be data collected. It has to go to the President. If you think you have a fishery disaster-- which we coastal Senators experience these days all too often--it has to go through the Secretary of Commerce.

I assure those of you on the floor, all those Senators, all taxpayers listening, that every one of these fisheries disasters has been certified, has been vetted to really say that in each and every State where we respond, it meets this criterion.

As to the money in the bill, in a $60 billion bill, this is $150 million. Listen to the jobs, listen to the economy, listen to people who go out in really cold weather and put their hands in that icy water, and they all risk their lives.

Everybody wants to go see the movie ``Triple Storm.'' We can't have a triple storm here in the Senate, which is this amendment, rejection of the urgent supplemental, and the inertia of the Senate.

I say to my colleagues, your words are well-spoken in defense of your State, but you are also exactly following the law.

I urge the Senator from Oklahoma to withdraw his amendment because it would make it out of compliance.

I say to each and every one of you as a fellow coastal Senator, I know our fishing industries--you call them fishermen, we call them watermen--whether it is oysters, crab, or rockfish, it is part of our economy and it is part of our identity. They asked for help.

I will oppose the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I actually would ask him to withdraw it because it is not a matter of debating policy, how to be a smarter and more frugal government, it is actually in violation of the current law.

I thank Senators for standing up for their own communities, and I hope this clarifies this bizarre situation.

I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Yes, the Senator is exactly right. And it happened under both Democratic and Republican Senates. So this has been declared under President Bill Clinton, and we worked with his Secretaries of Commerce. This was done under George Bush, and Secretary Gutierrez, himself from a coastal State of Florida--we worked very well together because the appropriators and the Governors and the economy people have to work together with Senators.

The answer is yes. Again, you cannot get fisheries disaster assistance unless it has been certified by the Secretary of Commerce in compliance with the criteria in current law.

Yes.

Mr. President, may I draw the distinction between a fishery disaster and an earmark? Because there is an undercurrent here from the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, who has said on many occasions that he has been the defendant of the taxpayer. Well, so am I. The difference between an earmark is a congressionally designated project that meets the criteria that Senator deems appropriate to help his State. That is not what this is. When he says it has to be certified by the Stafford Act, he is implying that these are uncertified, unneeded, unwarranted, and are earmarks. Once again I will say that these are certified by the Secretary of Commerce. They meet the criteria for compelling economic and human need as required by law. This is not an earmark, it is certified disaster assistance.

Let's get rid of this phony-baloney nonsense that somehow or another that would undermine this bill of $150 million that could restore livelihoods for people who are willing to work out there and risk their lives to feed America.

Mr. President, I too rise to pay tribute to the great Senator Daniel Inouye.

First, I want to express my deep and most heartfelt condolences to Senator Inouye's family, his wife Irene, his daughter Jennifer, his son Ken, Ken's wife Jessica, and their lovely little granddaughter Maggie. And to the people of Hawaii, also our condolences, because he loved them dearly, and they reciprocated by sending him time and time back to the Senate. I also want to express condolences to his very able and capable staff, the other Inouye family, many of whom were among the longest serving staff in the Senate, who were devoted to helping him help the people of Hawaii and helping the people of America. Hawaii and the Nation have lost a great hero and a true patriot, and I have lost a real good friend.

Senator Inouye was one of the great men of the Senate who welcomed me and helped me get started when I first came to the Senate. It is well known that I was the first Democratic woman elected in her own right. When I came to the Senate there was only one other woman, Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas. But I said this, and I say today, though I was the only Democratic woman, though I was all by myself: I was never alone because I had great men in the U.S. Senate who helped me get started and mentored me and taught me how to be an effective Senator.

Senator Inouye was in a group of those men who in the warmest, most generous, most helpful way welcomed me to the U.S. Senate. He helped me get on the powerful Appropriations Committee. He was my teacher. He was my mentor.

He also had a wonderful way of communicating with all of us. And as each new class of Senators--and each new class of women Senators arrived--he welcomed each and every one of us with the same warmth and generosity he showed to me.

We have a saying among us, the women of the Senate, which is that men of quality always stand up for us women fighting for equality. And Dan Inouye was there every step of the way. When we wanted equal pay for equal work, he was there. When we wanted to be included in the protocols at NIH and establish an Office of Women's Health, he was there, issue after issue.

Last year, I had the wonderful honor of traveling to the Middle East with Senator Inouye, and he admired the pin that I have on today. It is an eagle that many of the women in the Senate wear. There are those of various styles, of which we have a little collection. This one is from the Smithsonian. He said, I love it. It is so pretty. I want to get one for my wife.

Well, I don't know if Senator Inouye ever got it for his wife Irene, but I say to my colleagues today, at an appropriate time, on behalf of the women of the U.S. Senate, I will present this pin to Mrs. Inouye in honor of her husband, our gift to her, because he gave so many gifts to us.

He was a lion in the Senate, a real American hero. Although gentle in style, he was a fierce warrior when it came to fighting for his Nation or standing up for Hawaii.

When he received his Medal of Honor, he was rising to the call of the sirens of Pearl Harbor, volunteering to serve his country, putting aside his own dreams to be a physician. But he went on to be a healer of many wounds. He was decorated in World War II for saving his fellow soldiers.

My experience with Senator Inouye as a friend was that he was a devoted, dedicated public servant. He was Hawaii's first representative of the Nation's newest State. He was the first person of Japanese heritage ever to be elected to the Senate. Imagine, he himself knew what it was like to break barriers and to break boundaries. When he came to the Senate, he cherished his love for Hawaii and its people. He fought tirelessly to improve their lives.

His style was one of absolute civility. He was the one who believed that the decorum of the Senate enabled the Senate to do the people's business. He was the essence of civility, and he showed that often good manners was good politics, and that led to good politics. He did not argue the loudest; instead, he worked diligently. He marshaled his arguments and with quiet determination won the day.

As a fellow appropriator, I saw that he loved his earmarks. He liked earmarks. And what did he do with those earmarks? I can tell you. He made sure that we looked out for Indian tribes. He made sure we looked out for the poorest of the poor in Hawaii. He cleaned up a superfund site that had been left by an old agricultural legacy. And he made sure that children who needed help were able to get the education they needed in a small community setting who might not have been able to do it.

Yes, he was the old school. And it was the old school that should teach us a lesson or two.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee for 41 years, he led us by example. He came in 1971 and became the chairman in 2009. Leading by example, he showed how we can accomplish great things by working together. He saw we could have a stronger country, a stronger economy, and yet have a sense of frugality. He treated the minority party with great respect.

All have spoken about his legendary friendship with Senator Ted Stevens, another World War II hero. But now, as Senator Cochran, serving as the ranking member--he called him his vice chairman, and I know he was ready to reach out to Senator Shelby who assumed the role. He knew we needed the input of all Senators to not only enact our bills but to craft our bills.

He also served as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, the Indian Affairs Committee; he was the very first chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence.

There will be those who will read his resume. But when the history of Hawaii and this man is written, I hope they say he didn't come here to gain fame, he didn't come here to do press releases or to be on talk shows. He came here to govern. He came here to the U.S. Senate, having fought for his country in World War II while even members of his own family had been held in an internment camp because of their Japanese heritage. But he was loyal and faithful from the day he took his oath to defend the Constitution as a young private all the way to the day here now. He was a fierce defender of our military. For him, it was always about the troops. And he never forgot what it was like to be fighting in a foreign land. That is why he was devoted to our veterans and to our health care. And we are devoted to the memory of Senator Inouye.

So to an old-school war hero, let us give our final salute and a fond aloha. But let's take the lessons learned from his great life and incorporate them in our very day here today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Would the Senator from Oklahoma yield for a question?

I have a section of this bill, and I wonder if that amendment is relevant to my bill, and I would extend some courtesy.

I appreciate the Senator's advocacy for Oklahoma.

But what I am wanting to say to the Senator from Oklahoma is that my subcommittee deals with coastal impact, so the issue the Senator wishes to raise is with the Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

If it dealt with my part of the bill, I would say--because I know what the Senator is trying to do, and I appreciate it, which is trying to move the Senate forward in an expeditious way.