Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3588, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

To go over what happened, this is on behalf of myself and Senator Toomey. It is a bipartisan bill.

There was a recently released Environmental Protection Agency interpretation of a law that could cost local governments, municipalities, and taxpayers across the country millions of dollars and undermine public safety.

It is a classic case of the Federal bureaucracy and restriction harming our local communities and their budgets. No one would believe this, but it is about one of the most basic functions of government-- fire hydrants.

Almost 3 years ago, Congress passed the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, legislation with an admirable goal, a goal that is spelled out right in the name, and the law is set to be implemented on January 4, 2014.

As we know, Congress intended for this law to direct the EPA to make rules that would keep our drinking water safe from coming into contact with lead-based parts. Congress did that and EPA exempted parts in bathtubs and showers that don't have direct impact on the quality of the drinking water, such as the knobs, the hot and cold knobs. Of course, the faucets would be under the law.

But at the end of October, suddenly, the EPA released a new interpretation of the law that for the first time put fire hydrants under the new standard set by law, meaning everyone needs to buy and install new and upgraded fire hydrants that contain less lead.

It took everyone by surprise. Only a small fraction of fire hydrants are ever used for drinking water. Even when they are, lead poisoning is associated with long-term exposure, which does not occur on the occasions when someone might drink from a hydrant.

While that surprising rule was announced at the end of October, the EPA expects all new fire hydrants installed after January 4 to be of this new reduced-lead standard. No manufacturer can make fire hydrants that quickly. If the interpretation stands, cities and county water authorities would be forced to throw out hundreds of hydrants now in stock, wasting millions of dollars and passing that waste on to consumers in terms of rate hikes. At the same time, there would be no new hydrants they could install when a fire hydrant malfunctioned, when it was run over by a car in an accident or when a snowplow knocked it down.

We are pleased this legislation we have just passed--my colleague from Pennsylvania and I--will now exempt fire hydrants from the reduced lead standard, just as bathtub and shower pieces that don't have contact with the water are exempt.

Simply put, the EPA's interpretation of reduced lead standards unnecessarily imposed a huge burden on municipalities and first responders without any discernible safety benefit. We have now undone that danger.

I thank my colleague from Ohio. We appreciate his good work. We have now saved municipalities millions of dollars, as well as ensured safety in our communities because the fire hydrants that are in stock will be able to be used.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, first, I wish to assure my colleagues that they don't have to be wearing a blue jacket to be supportive of this legislation, as the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from Louisiana, and I happen to be wearing this afternoon.

Second, I thank my friend and colleague from Louisiana. What my friend from North Dakota said is exactly right. She has been the Paul Revere of this issue, running up and down the aisles of the Senate, if you will, letting people know--``flood insurance increases are coming; flood insurance increases are coming''--because she saw it in her home State. She has been a great leader, and I hope we will pass the measure she has helped so importantly to craft when it is offered a little later by my colleague from New Jersey.

I wish to say to her that she is exactly right about Sandy. We have families who were devastated by Sandy. They struggled to rebuild their homes. Then, all of a sudden, because of remapping and because of changes in the flood insurance law, they are hit with a flood insurance bill of $800, $900, $1,000. Let's make no mistake about it. These are not wealthy people. Lots of people in New York State who live along the water in Long Island and Queens and Brooklyn and Staten Island are working-class and middle-class people. Their homes are modest. Their jobs are modest. They can't afford $9,000 a year. For those who were told: Yours isn't going to rise, but when you sell your home it will, now they can't sell their homes.

There are some things that make the rest of the Nation scratch their heads in wonderment, saying: What the heck is going on in Washington, DC? There are too many things, and one of them is flood insurance. How can we demand that average, middle-class people pay up to, in some cases, $25,000 or $30,000 a year for a policy that is capped at $250,000? How can we have so many homeowners have to pay $5,000, $8,000, $10,000 when they can ill afford it? We cannot do that. That is why this legislation is so important. It is just wrong.

When we wrote the original Sandy bill, we put in an affordability provision, and there was supposed to be a study about how people could afford the insurance before any increases were put into effect. That did not happen.

I have to say, the people at FEMA are good people, but they do not understand affordability. They are not measuring affordability. They are not paying attention to affordability.

What is the job of Congress? One of our jobs--when an agency does not do what it is supposed to do--is for us to correct it and oversee it, and that is what has happened with FEMA and flood insurance.

So we call for a delay until an affordability study is done, until we can figure out a new way to avoid average folks, middle-class folks, from being forced to either not have flood insurance, abandon their homes, or not sell their homes when they desperately need to do so.

FEMA is saying: If we do not charge these people, the program will not be solvent. I will tell you something. If they continue to charge these rates, no one is going to buy flood insurance. People will drop out of the flood insurance program, and it will be even less solvent. So we have to come to a reasonable, thoughtful, and careful solution.

As the first two of us who have spoken have shown--and my colleagues from Louisiana, New Jersey, Florida, New Hampshire, who are all here to discuss this issue--this affects every part of the Nation. It does not just affect Florida, although they have hurricanes. It does not just affect Louisiana, although they have hurricanes and floods. It affects our great river basins--the Missouri and Mississippi River basins. It affects the west coast, where flash floods can be very, very dangerous. It affects any place that is near water, which is most of America.

We have so many issues. The maps that are drawn are way off base. I have areas in my State that are 5 miles from water and have never been flooded and are included in flood insurance. FEMA actually did not even measure the flood plains in Nassau County and imposed Suffolk County's flood plain. We had to force them to go back and start over.

There is so much wrong with the way the program is now existing that it must be put on hold so we can come up with something better than FEMA is doing.

So I hope my colleagues will support us. We have bipartisan support. The Senator from Georgia has been a great advocate. Others have been great advocates on the other side of the aisle. If you say to yourself: I am going to object because this is not affecting my State, believe me, it will. As FEMA draws maps in State after State across the country, the very same thing that is now afflicting North Dakota, Louisiana, New York, Florida, and New Jersey will afflict your State. You will be coming back to us 2 years from now saying: Hey, let's move that legislation.

Let's avoid that problem. Let's do what we have to do. Put this on hold, go back to the drawing board, and create a FEMA program that both works and is affordable. I believe we can, if this Senate and this House will give us the chance.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a particular incident that occurred in Webster, NY, a beautiful town near the City of Rochester.

On Christmas Eve, 2012, nearly 1 year ago today, the 125-member West Webster Volunteer Firemen's Association--a volunteer fire department east of Rochester, NY--faced an unimaginable tragedy when four of their brave members were wounded, two fatally, when they responded to a fire but instead faced an ambush of unspeakable proportions.

While many families across our Nation were waking up last Christmas Eve morning to finish preparing Christmas dinner, shopping, wrapping presents, picking up the family from the airport, four Webster families were instead confronting a heart-wrenching tragedy.

The call of a house on fire came into the West Webster Fire Department at 5:30 a.m. on December 24, and although it was a cold snowy morning, still dark before the Sun rose, everyday heroes from the West Webster Fire Department courageously did what they volunteered to do on behalf of their neighbors and on behalf of their hometowns. They, similar to millions of brave volunteer firefighters throughout our country and throughout its history, left their homes and their families in safety to put out a fire that always creates danger.

This routine call turned into a tragedy which shocked the community, people throughout the country, and even people throughout the world.

Firefighter Joseph Hofstetter, a 14-year volunteer for West Webster Fire Department, arrived first on the scene. Firefighter Theodore Scardino arrived soon after with LT Mike Chiapperini in a pumper truck, followed by 19-year-old firefighter Tomasz Kaczowka driving the department's SUV.

What they did not know was that the fire was intentionally set by the home's owner in order to lure these innocent firefighters into a senseless sniper ambush. The sniper was hiding behind a berm amid the chaos of the fire and began shooting at the responding firefighters.

The firefighters were confused at first to hear popping sounds and thought it might be from the fire but LT Mike Chiapperini, who was also a Webster police officer, knew better and shouted to his fellow volunteers to take cover, but unfortunately it was too late.

Firefighter Hofstetter was shot in the pelvis while trying to alert dispatchers on the radio to the situation.

Ted Scardino was shot in the shoulder, and 5 minutes later he was shot again in the leg. The 16-year volunteer lay there while bleeding for over an hour, enduring the December cold while sustaining second- degree burns on his head as the fire now spread to consume six other neighboring homes.

Lieutenant Chiapperini and Firefighter Kaczowka both died in the ambush.

As news of this horrific, senseless Christmas Eve tragedy spread, well-meaning people from across the Rochester and Finger Lakes area, across New York State, across the Nation and the world reached out to the West Webster Volunteer Firemen's Association to offer support and prayers.

Thousands of incredibly generous people flooded the department with countless financial contributions to support the volunteer department, to support the four firefighters--and in the case of Lieutenant Chiapperini and Firefighter Kaczowka, to support the families they had left behind.

Not realizing that collecting and distributing the funds to the families would jeopardize the association's tax-exempt status with the IRS, the association accepted donations from generous people all around the Nation wanting to help the four families who suffered the most on that day.

They collected these donations for the victims, for their families, and they want to give these donations to

the victims and their families. It defies reason that they would be unable to do so now because of a technicality in the Tax Code.

Just as we did after 9/11, and again after a similar fire department tragedy in California in 2006, it is our obligation to make sure the West Webster Volunteer Firemen's Association can now disburse to these families the contributions that their neighbors and unknown, countless, generous others wanted them to have.

As it is, the disbursement of these funds has been delayed for months and now almost 1 year. That is why I am asking the Senate to proceed with consideration of the Fallen Firefighters Assistance Tax Clarification Act.

This proposal merely clarifies--as we did after 9/11 and again after the California tragedy in 2006--that the West Webster Volunteer Fire Department will not lose its status as a nonprofit association by distributing the donations to these firefighters and their families.

As we again enter the Christmas season and approach the 1-year anniversary of this tragedy, now is the time to make this right.

We need to do it on behalf of the families of the fallen and the injured. The family of 43-year-old LT Mike Chiapperini includes his wife Kim, his 19-year-old son Nick, and his daughters, 4-year-old Kacie and 3-year-old Kylie.

Known to many as Chip, Lieutenant Chiapperini was a West Webster Fire Department volunteer firefighter for 25 years. He was past chief of the West Webster Fire Department and adviser for its Fire Explorer Post. He also served with distinction for 19 years as a police officer with the Webster Police Department and rose through the ranks as a dispatcher, police officer, investigator, sergeant, and lieutenant. In short, he committed his entire life to public service for the town of Webster.

Likewise, 19-year-old firefighter Tomasz Kaczowka left behind his parents Janina and Marian Kaczowka, along with his older twin brothers and a large extended family. Firefighter Kaczowka was selflessly devoted to his family and his community. In fact, he was not even supposed to be on duty that Christmas Eve but elected to make the shift so that older department members could be home with their families that day.

The surviving firefighters, Ted Scardino and Joseph Hofstetter, have had to endure long rehabilitations for their injuries and their families have had to deal with life's ordinary challenges and day-to- day expenses as Ted and Joseph recover and move forward with their lives.

The fact is, ordinary Americans, moved by the heroic sacrifice of these volunteer firefighters, have offered their generous support. They have intended their contributions to help these families in the wake of the tragedy and in recognition of the service of these brave firefighters.

These were volunteer firefighters--volunteers. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are well acquainted with the volunteer fire service. Many may even have a membership in a volunteer fire company themselves.

You all know men and women just like the members of West Webster. They are the epitome of the American spirit.

The French observer de Tocqueville was taken by that spirit when he visited America and the Rochester area in 1831 and thought voluntarism was one of the things that set America apart from the rest of the world. That was true then. It is still true today.

These heroes do not ask for anything. They just want to protect their neighbors and their community. It is just plain wrong that they would lose their not-for-profit status simply for being a passthrough to convey donations to these families after an unspeakable tragedy.

In that same spirit, I had hoped to request unanimous consent this evening to move forward with the consideration of this legislation. Who could object? Who could object? However, I understand that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle object to me making the request at this time. Therefore, I will withhold that request this evening and sincerely hope my colleagues will think about this overnight and allow us to proceed with consideration tomorrow. It is, indeed, the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that if the Senate receives H.R. 3548 from the House of Representatives and the bill is identical to S. 1689, as introduced, then the bill be considered as having been read three times and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues, in the Christmas spirit, despite these contentious times, for letting this bill move forward. Let me just briefly explain.

On Christmas Eve, 2012, nearly one year ago today, the 125-member West Webster Volunteer Fire Association--a volunteer fire department outside of Rochester--faced an unimaginable tragedy when four of their brave members were wounded, two fatally, when they responded to a fire but in instead faced an ambush of unspeakable proportions.

While many of our families across our Nation were waking up last Christmas Eve morning preparing Christmas dinner, shopping, wrapping presents or picking up family from the airport, four families in Webster, NY, were instead confronting a heart-wrenching tragedy.

The call of a house on fire came in to the West Webster Fire Department at 5:30 a.m. that morning, December 24. It was a cold, snowy morning, still dark, but the everyday heroes from the West Webster Fire Department courageously did what they volunteered to do on behalf of their neighbors and on behalf of their hometowns. They left their homes and their families to put out a fire.

Instead, this routine call turned into a tragedy which shocked this community and people throughout the country and even the world. What they didn't know was that the fire was intentionally set by the home's owner in order to lure these innocent firefighters into a senseless sniper ambush. The sniper was hiding behind a berm amid the chaos of the fire and began shooting at the responding firefighters.

The firefighters were confused at first to hear popping sounds; they thought it might be the fire, but Lieutenant Mike Chiapperini, who was also a Webster police officer, knew better and shouted to his fellow volunteers to take cover, but it was too late.

Firefighter Hofstetter was shot in the pelvis while trying to alert dispatchers on the radio to the situation.

Ted Scardino was shot in the shoulder, and 5 minutes later shot in the leg. A 16-year volunteer lay there bleeding for an hour, enduring the December cold while sustaining second-degree burns on his head.

Lieutenant Chiapperini and firefighter Kaczowka both died in the ambush.

As news of this horrific senseless Christmas Eve tragedy spread, well meaning people from Rochester, New York State, the Nation, and the world reached out to the West Webster Fire Association to offer their support and prayers.

Not realizing that collecting and distributing the funds to the family would jeopardize the association's tax exempt status with the IRS, the association accepted donations from generous people all around the Nation wanting to help the poor families who suffered so on that day. They collected these donations for the victims and their families. They wanted to give these donations to the victims and their families. It defies reason that they would be unable to do so because of a technicality in the Tax Code.

Just as we did after 9/11 and again after a similar fire department tragedy in California, it is our obligation to make sure the West Webster Volunteer Firemen's Association can now distribute to these families the contributions their neighbors and unknown countless generous others wanted them to have. With the passage of this legislation, that will happen.

I thank my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle. I know these are contentious times, and this was done truly in the Christmas spirit, and I thank them.

Wolford Confirmation

One more brief moment. We just confirmed to the U.S. district court the first woman to serve on the Federal bench in the Western District of New York, Elizabeth Wolford. She is going to be a great judge. Ms. Wolford is right out of central casting for the role of a Federal judge. Not only will the legal community of Western New York be well served by her ascension on the bench, the entire community will benefit from her leadership, wisdom, and judgment.

It is an honor to have nominated and to now confirm Elizabeth Wolford, the first woman to represent the Western District of New York, a very distinguished bench.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to wait for Senator Grassley--here he is. I will speak for a minute and then propound my unanimous consent request, and then Senator Grassley will propound his request, I presume.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my good colleague from Florida who has been a great partner on this very important issue. He outlined it well. I will just speak for a few minutes on this subject.

The bottom line is very simple. There are bad people who always want to evade the law, and there are good people--most Americans, the vast majority--who want to protect the law. Our job is to prevent the bad people without hurting the good people. We will have different views on the issue of gun control as to where to draw that line, but it seems to me on this issue there should be no dispute whatsoever. As the Senator from Florida outlined, there is new technology that for the first time will allow guns to be made that function without metal. That presents a serious danger--some might even say a mortal danger--to our safety because if a person can pass a gun through a metal detector with the very purpose to stop guns from getting into delicate areas, such as airports, sports stadiums, courts, and schools, it can create real havoc. To allow plastic guns that can fire one bullet, two bullets, three bullets, four bullets into these places creates real danger for our citizenry.

There were some wise people back in 1988, even before these guns could be developed, who passed a law that said we should not allow them to exist. It was a good law. The trouble is, as my colleague from Florida has outlined, technology has advanced, so not only are these guns real, but they can be made so that the law that exists and expires tonight can be evaded.

If one were to add an easily removable piece of metal to one of these plastic guns, walk with it, with that metal on it--legal under present law--take it off as a person puts the gun through a metal detector, so it is all plastic, and then quietly insert it back on the gun after it goes through a metal detector, one would have a gun on both sides of the metal detector that is legal under present law, the law that expires tonight, and a person can then evade the very purpose that we have metal detectors at our airports, sports stadiums, and other places--to prevent guns from being smuggled in.

So what we would ideally like to do, the Senator from Florida and I, is say that those types of guns, as well as guns that are purely plastic, should be illegal and that a gun must have some metal in it that can't be removed easily--and those guns would be legal, but those guns wouldn't be smuggled through metal detectors.

Now, years ago, it seemed as though this was all fiction. I remember that in the movie ``In the Line of Fire,'' John Malkovich, seeking to kill the President, takes months to make a gun out of plastic. It was science fiction. But in the last few years that science fiction has become a reality. Three-D printers--a technology overall that is miraculous--can create a trachea for a baby so the baby can live. Three-D printers can create car parts at a much cheaper price. But they can also create plastic guns. Technology allows them to be sold for $1,000 or a little more than $1,000, so just about anyone can get one, certainly a terrorist intent on doing evil. So the ban takes on new urgency.

Today there is good news and bad news. The good news is that the House of Representatives has passed a bill to extend that ban for 10 years. The bad news is that the dangerous loophole I mentioned is still in the bill. Under existing law--the law that expires tonight--one can make one of these undetectable guns perfectly legal by simply attaching a metal handle at the last moment when you want to slip it somewhere where it could be very dangerous and then remove the metal part and make the gun invisible to the metal detector. All the Senator from Florida and I wish to do is simply require that the metal piece be permanently affixed to the gun. Any gun without a permanent metal piece would be illegal--a simple fix that will save lots of lives. Unfortunately, the House bill that passed keeps the present loophole in the law.

I haven't heard any argument against our amendment other than: Nose in the camel's tent; this will allow people to do other bad things. But I haven't heard one specific argument against our closing the loophole

in the law the way we want to do it. Unfortunately, from what I am told, there will be an objection to that and we will just pass a 10- year extension. That is better than nothing, but it doesn't get us across the finish line. The House bill is a step in the right direction, certainly better than letting the law expire, but it still has a glaring loophole in it.

So I hope we can pass a bill that not only extends the current ban but closes the loophole that allows for the manufacture of guns that can evade detection by simply removing a piece of metal. It is a simple fix to the existing statute that won't interrupt any lawful commerce in arms. One can be the most fervent believer in the Second Amendment, and the amendment we propose does not interfere with anyone's right to have a gun--none. All we do is keep the legislative language up to speed with technological developments.

In conclusion, a few years ago these undetectable plastic guns were science fiction. Now they are frighteningly real. That is why we have to extend the ban and hopefully close the loophole.

I again thank my colleague Senator Nelson, as well as my colleague in the House, Congressman Israel, and so many others who have joined us in this, including Senator Murphy, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schatz, who have been partners in trying to get this done.

Now I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3626, which is at the desk; that the Nelson- Schumer, et al. amendment, which is also at the desk, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Iowa. Obviously, I disagree. I think we should be closing this loophole. The language may have been available this afternoon, but the concept was out there for weeks and weeks, if not longer. But I appreciate his language, and he said he did not object to any specifics that I have mentioned here.

So I look forward. We are going to work hard with the Senator from Iowa and others, with whom I disagree on interpretations of the Second Amendment in general, to try and come to an agreement here to close a loophole that we do not think touches any Second Amendment rights in any way at all. If we can work together over the next few months, weeks, with hearings and other things, and convince our colleagues that we have no intent other than to close this loophole and make sure the very law the Senator from Iowa wished to renew is simply made whole, given the new technology and the loophole is closed, I look forward to that opportunity.

So I appreciate my colleague's remarks. I wish we had passed this amendment. I think it would have made the bill better, stronger, with fewer loopholes, but that does not mean we cannot try to do that over the next several months. I appreciate the opportunity to do so with my friend, the only other ``Charles E.'' in the Senate.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, December 11, 2013, at 10 a.m. to hear testimony on the nomination of Thomas Hicks and Myrna Perez to be members of the Election Assistance Commission.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee, (202) 224-6352.

committee on indian affairs

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, as in legislative session, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1774, a bill to reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 1 year, introduced earlier today; that the bill be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action.

Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my friend from Alabama, my gym mate and friend and colleague. I would say this. This is simply a renewal of a bill that has passed the Senate unanimously several times before. These days, technology has allowed us to make undetectable a firearm--no metal. It can get right through a metal detector.

I would like to improve on this bill but, because it expires by December 9, right before we get back, I was hoping we could simply pass the existing law that is on the books. I am afraid that will not happen.

I understand why my colleague from Alabama objected. I hope as soon as we come back we might get this body to pass it and maybe get the House to pass it.

We are in a dangerous world. To allow terrorists, criminals, those who are mentally infirm, to walk through metal detectors with guns that are made of plastic and then use them at airports, sporting events, and schools is a very bad thing. What makes us need to do this rather quickly is that a few months ago someone in Texas published on a Web site a way to make a plastic gun, buying a 3-D printer for less than $1,000. There are over 200,000 copies, hits on that Web site. People hit the Web site then, so we have to move quickly here. I hope we can move as soon as we get back.

I do understand the objection of my colleague tonight, given everything that has happened today, but we cannot wait. I hope nobody will object to this bill. I have some worries that some might, but let's hope not. This is serious stuff.

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

Mr. President, I speak today in strong support of S.1512, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1335 Jefferson Road in Rochester, NY, as the ``Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office.''

Specialist Glende's story reminds us that no gesture of thanks can adequately reflect the sacrifices made by our troops each and every day. I would like to tell you about one amazing New Yorker. Specialist Glende grew up on Park Avenue in Rochester, NY, graduated from McQuaid Jesuit High School in Brighton, and enrolled in ROTC as soon as he entered Niagara University. Three years into his college career and ROTC training, he learned that upon graduation his rank would be a Lieutenant in the Reserves. But his desire to serve on active duty in the Infantry was such that he left school a year early and enlisted in the Army, determined to work his way up. He served in a unit stationed in Italy, and was deployed to Afghanistan in 2012.

In late July of last year, Specialist Glende and his unit came under attack by enemy forces. Some soldiers were wounded, and while the attack continued to rage around him, Specialist Glende went above and beyond the call of duty to help rescue these wounded soldiers and get them to safety. Tragically, he sacrificed his life in the process. Specialist Glende's family was told that he saved five soldiers from death before he was killed.

The Federal Government should go to any length to salute heroes like Specialist Glende for their courage under fire. Specialist Glende gave his life for our great Nation, and we are now working to ensure that his memory serves as an example of impeccable character and exceptional patriotism.

He was steadfastly loyal and dedicated to his family, his young wife, and his country. I am humbled to be honoring his memory and paying tribute to his brave and heroic sacrifice with

this legislation to dedicate the Rochester Main Post Office at 1335 Jefferson Road as the Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office.

Growing up on Park Avenue in Rochester and attending McQuaid Jesuit High School in Brighton, he was known as ``Matt'' to his family and friends. Later, when he met his future wife Alexandra while working alongside her at the Pittsford Wegmans grocery store, she would call him ``Theo.'' But with the dedication of this Post Office, he will be remembered by his thankful hometown community once and for ever as ``Specialist Glende.''

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island, for calling Senator Blumenthal and me and others together and for taking action on climate change. There has been no one in this body who has done more to sound the alarm about climate change.

I have enjoyed his regular ``time to wake up'' speeches. I guess this is number 49--excuse me, 48. One of them was

so good I read it twice. He has been relentless on this issue in a positive, articulate, and superb way.

There could not be a better day to talk about climate change than today because we are at the 1-year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy. Senators Whitehouse and Blumenthal and I remember it vividly. We each visited our communities on the days afterwards and saw the terrible blow that Sandy delivered to New York and the whole east coast. It created such damage and upheaval to communities and lives. Sandy was a horrible event, but the one silver lining in this large awful cloud is that people take climate change more seriously. I think most Americans agreed that climate change is real, but there was not a sense of urgency about climate change pre-Sandy. People said, well, it is happening 25 years from now or 50 years from now. Unlike Senator Whitehouse, who has a sense of passion and a sense of urgency daily and immediately about this, most people said we can let things wait.

Unfortunately, despite the efforts of the Senator from Rhode Island and others, our bodies are not doing enough on climate change. But when Sandy occurred, a sea change occurred. Americans understood--those of us in the Northeast probably more than anybody else--that we cannot afford to wait. It took 10 years to get the American people to accept the fact that climate change is real. It took one storm to get them to understand that we had to move immediately.

Sandy was awful. In the days after the storm, I toured places such as the Rockaways and Long Beach, Staten Island, Lindenhurst. Whole neighborhoods were leveled and thousands of New Yorkers were homeless. To see an elderly gentleman, Mr. Romano, sitting in front of his lot in Great South Bay in Lindenhurst, his house totally destroyed, sitting in one of his few possessions left, a little lawn chair, was devastating. I asked Mr. Romano: Are you going to move?

He said: Look at the view.

Two days after Sandy, the skies were peaceful, the Sun was beautiful, and it was reflected off of Great South Bay. He said: Every year I have had 364 good days and 1 bad day. I am not moving.

That story can be repeated, but the devastation was real. To drive down the streets in the Rockaways or the streets of Long Beach or of Staten Island, the South Shore of Staten Island, and see house after house with piles in front of the houses of not just furniture, although that was a problem--we all have our favorite chair, a favorite place to sit. But people's lives were out there: heirlooms that had been in the family for generations, pictures and albums gone, like that.

This is an example of one of the places hurt the worst: Breezy Point, a hardy community of cops, firefighters, teachers, EMT workers; the heart of New York City's middle class. They are the very same people-- many did from Breezy Point--who rushed the towers on 9/11, and some lost their lives. They were the people who were devastated here. A fire erupted, 120 houses--it looked like Dresden after the bombings in World War II--and all that was left was this religious shrine. I will never forget that scene and having the local firefighters showing me what had happened.

Of course, our local infrastructure was terribly damaged as well. Here we have the R train, which Secretary Fox and I just announced is going to be up and ready in 1 year. The tunnel had millions of gallons of water--brackish water, salty water--that not only ruined the infrastructure of the tunnels, but the signals that depended on electric functioning--gone. These scenes are repeated over and over.

What Sandy did is make climate change real to New Yorkers in a horrible way. The same is now happening across the country. So what Sandy did was not alert us to the fact that climate change exists but alerted us that it was a call to action. While climate scientists try to avoid blaming any single weather event on climate change, we know that a warming planet can load the dice for more frequent and extreme storms. As sure as we all are sitting here, there will be other storms, unfortunately, and God forbid but in all likelihood, of Sandy's devastation that will affect different parts of the country. As I and others have said in the days after Sandy, we have had far too many events over the past 3 years in New York, including Irene, Lee, and then Sandy, to think we can ignore the impact of a warming planet and the impact that is having on our communities.

Even if one denies the scientific reality of climate change, there is little dispute over the stark challenge facing our country. The weather is more dangerous than ever and threatens our economy. According to recent polling, Americans now support taking action on climate change to protect our children and grandchildren.

So we need to do two things at once. We need to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels to slow down the warming of the planet, and we have to start investing in real climate adaptation projects in the most vulnerable parts of the country.

My colleague from Rhode Island talked about the devastation in Florida. He is right. The Florida delegation should be up in arms. I know some of our colleagues--they tend to be on this side of the aisle--are, but we hear silence from the other side of the aisle on climate change. In just a generation, a good percentage of Florida will be out of commission. Miami, one of the largest cities in the country, is virtually unprotected when it comes to climate change.

So we have to do both of these things. One year after Sandy, I am pleased we have made some progress.

First, the Hurricane Sandy relief law we passed earlier this year provided an injection of billions of dollars into mitigation for the east coast. When we rebuild this subway line, the signals are going to be higher up so if, God forbid, there is another flood, they will not be out of commission. At the entrances to the various tunnels--hundreds of thousands of people take these every week--there will be gates or a certain kind of airbag that can instantaneously prevent the tunnel from being flooded. We are elevating homes and building new floodwalls and dunes to prevent damage from the next Sandy.

So one thing we are doing is mitigation. Those of us--Senator Whitehouse, Senator Blumenthal, and others from New Jersey and Maryland and Pennsylvania and Delaware and New York and Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island delegations made sure in this legislation there is ample money for mitigation, so that if or when, God forbid, another storm such as Sandy occurs, we will be better protected.

Second, the President took a bold and important step in releasing his climate action plan, a critical blueprint for reducing carbon pollution. The plan also lays out a framework for implementing new mitigation plans for Federal, State, and local governments by tying Federal funding to new standards on climate adaptation. We now know a simple economic truth from many years of investing in mitigation projects: They save money. According to research, for every $1 we invest in mitigation, we save $4 down the road because of what will be protected and taxpayers will not have to shell out the same dollars again and again and again.

So it doesn't matter what side of the climate change debate one is on when it comes to investing in mitigation. Being promitigation makes good fiscal sense for the Federal Government.

A recent study found that Federal taxpayers spent $136 billion on disaster relief in just the 3 years of 2011, 2012, and 2013--$400 per household. The only way we can shrink this burden for the American people over time is to make critical mitigation investments at the same time we fight climate change by cutting carbon pollution.

I wish to specifically mention one piece of legislation which my colleague from Rhode Island also mentioned. He is on the EPW Committee and he has championed it with many of our colleagues. WRDA, the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act, got 83 votes in the Senate and will be a real boost for investment in climate adaptation.

In this bill, there is a new program called WIFIA. The very successful TIFIA Program which, for instance, without the local taxpayers spending a nickel, will bring our subway system all the way over to the far west side. I look forward to opening it with the mayor soon. Modeled on that program is WIFIA. It helps local governments

invest in mitigation projects by providing low-interest loans and a new banking design to attract private investment into these projects.

There are also new authorities that will allow the Army Corps to expedite and prioritize hurricane protection studies and project recommendations. I thank my colleagues, led by Senator Boxer, of the EPW Committee for working with us to draft some of this language.

These new policies are very important for New York and the States affected by Sandy. I urge our colleagues in the House to work with us to include these items in the WRDA conference.

We need to use the tragedy of Sandy to learn how to make our cities and towns stronger for the next storm. We know it is coming. We have to work at the local level in terms of mitigation. We have to work at the macro level to reduce the amount of carbon that has poured into our atmosphere that will just devastate the planet if we continue to sit on our hands.

I will close my remarks by borrowing a simple refrain from my friend from Rhode Island. As his poster says, it is time to wake up. Superstorm Sandy was New York's wake-up call. Let's honor the thousands of victims of that event by investing in our future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I am sure Senator Blumenthal joins me. I wish to say to my dear friend from Rhode Island--and he truly is a dear friend--that his generosity of word and spirit is only equaled by his intelligence, his diligence, and his foresightedness, not only on this issue but on so many other issues on which we are working. In fact, we are going to make a call in a few minutes--he and I and a few of our colleagues and I think Senator Blumenthal as well--to talk about another of his issues. He is just such an intelligent thinker, and he is thinking ahead of the curve on climate change. But delivery system reform in health care is another issue on which the Senator from Rhode Island has taken leadership.

So I thank him for his kind words and just say ``right back at you, baby.''

I yield the floor.

I know the hour is getting late. The passage of this bill is nigh, and so I will be brief, but I wish to make a few points.

First, this is hardly a day of exultation and happiness. The sad truth is that we have ended just where we started. When we began several weeks ago, our goal was simple: Open the government, pay our bills, and then let's negotiate. The proposal that will be before us shortly does just that and no more. We open the government. We pay our bills. Then we can sit down and negotiate. But along the way, many people have been hurt. Millions of people didn't get paychecks. The economy has been dented, and the civility in Washington--whatever was left of it--evaporated. So to say this is a good day because one party might be doing better than another--no. It is a day that is, in a certain sense, grim. We have finally achieved our goal--the same place where we started--but at a cost. It never should have been this way.

Second, I wish to salute two of our leaders. I salute our Democratic leader

and my dear friend Harry Reid. From the beginning he was stalwart. He led with his strength. He said that we cannot govern in a way where any faction says: Unless we get our way, we will hurt the American people by closing down the government, by letting us default. He said: We cannot stand for that any longer. We have had enough of that in Washington, and we are not going to bend to that type of awful politics.

He stood firm. He stood strong. He didn't waiver. Tonight we are passing the bill that he sought and we sought 3 weeks ago.

I would also like to salute the Republican leader Senator McConnell. We all know he has a difficult political situation. We all know it would have been easier for him to duck. We all know that when it became clear the House of Representatives was so tied in a knot that it couldn't function, it couldn't pass any bill, Leader McConnell stepped up for the good of the Nation and showed courage. He deserves our thanks as well.

Finally, I will make one more point. If there is a silver lining that can come out of this gray cloud, it is that perhaps, moving forward, the politics of brinkmanship, of confrontation has reached its peak in this body and in this country.

We have seen that a small faction in either House, when it says ``my way or no way,'' when it says ``I am going to do such hurt to innocent people that you will have to succumb to me''--we saw they failed, hopefully with large bipartisan votes, certainly in this Chamber and perhaps in the other. And we have seen that many on both sides of the aisle have come together and said: We are not going to go along with this type of politics, from wherever it comes.

Perhaps when January 15 and February 7 come about, we will not see a repeat of what we have seen these last few weeks because it has been repudiated by the vast majority in this body and in the other body and certainly by the American people, a very small percentage of whom supported the politics of brinkmanship--the reckless, irresponsible politics of brinkmanship that some have exercised over the last few weeks.

So that would be the silver lining in this cloud, that we can go back to the old way of legislating where we sit down, we talk over our differences, we negotiate, and we come to a conclusion for the good of America, the way the Founding Fathers envisioned it. They did not envision what happened here in the last 3 weeks, and it was not America's finest moment. But out of this great darkness can come some light--the desire on both sides of the aisle, of the majority of both parties to say: Enough brinkmanship. Let's sit down, let's negotiate, and let's move forward so this great country will be led by its government instead of pulled down by its government. That is my fervent wish.

After these last 3 weeks we are ending where we started, unfortunately, and people have been hurt as that happened. But perhaps the lessons of the last 3 weeks will sink in amongst us all and we will not see a repeat of what has happened.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to underscore for a brief moment what our leader has said: Default would be devastating to this country. Closing the government is awful for our country. Yesterday we all saw for the first time, after the government has been closed for too many days, when we are on the eve of default, some real progress-- Leader Reid and Leader McConnell coming together on the outlines of a plan which made a great deal of sense, where each side had to give but could accept. And all of a sudden at the last minute, as the locomotive to avoid default is heading down the tracks and getting some steam, Speaker Boehner throws a log on the path. This is wrong.

He knows his proposal--we don't even know what it is yet. They have to tweak it probably to try to appease the hard right. But he knows his proposal with the measures in it already that have leaked out would not be signed by the President or pass the Senate. So instead of doing the right thing, looking at the Senate bipartisan proposal and moving forward on that, Speaker Boehner decides to light a match and throw it on the gasoline that is already all over the place. I hope he will desist.

We all have seen that the House can't lead in this regard. They can pass a lot of one-House bills, but they can't get anything done. Let him desist. Let him defer to the Democratic and Republican leaders here in this body so we can avoid default, open the government, and get back to America's business.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I understand that H.J. Res. 80 has been received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.