Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, February 27, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., to conduct a markup of the Omnibus Budget for Senate Committees.

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

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, February 13, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., to conduct its organizational meeting for the 113th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I know Senator Kerry will be speaking tomorrow, so I will be brief. I think I speak on behalf of every one of us here that we so admire the job Senator Kerry has done in the many different phases of his past life. We are excited he will be our Secretary of State, and for John Kerry I think the best is yet to come.

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 thank the chair of the Appropriations Committee for the wonderful job she has done. We have worked together as a team, and she has been great. This is her first major bill as chair of the Appropriations Committee, and I think it bodes well for the future, if you will, of the strengthening of that committee on into the year as we do appropriations bills.

I thank my colleague from Alabama, my gym mate, Senator Shelby, for his help and support. I think he and Senator Mikulski will make a great team

as chair and ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

I thank Mary Landrieu and the other subcommittee chairs. They did an amazing job for us, and I thank them. Mary's assistance and advice, given what she went through several years ago in Louisiana with Katrina, was invaluable to those of us in New York and New Jersey.

Finally, I see Senator Gillibrand is here; Senator Blumenthal is in the chair; in addition, Senator Murphy, Senator Menendez, Senator Lautenberg--we have all worked as a team, and I thank them for their efforts.

It has been 91 days since Sandy struck. It has taken far too long, but we are finally one vote away from getting the much needed aid we so desperately depend on in New York and New Jersey. It was 3 months ago that Superstorm Sandy tore up the east coast, obliterating hundreds of thousands of homes in New York. It was 91 days ago that this hurricane, coupled with a cold front, uprooted small businesses that are the lifeblood of middle-class communities on Long Island, Staten Island, Queens, Brooklyn, and Lower Manhattan.

As you may recall, Sandy's wrath was wide, and it was deep. Nearly 300,000 families had their homes damaged or destroyed by Sandy; 131 people were killed, 60 in New York; 2 million individuals lost power; and our Nation's public transportation system witnessed catastrophic flooding. Despite overwhelming damage from wind and water, snow, and in some neighborhoods even fire, New Yorkers are ready to move forward.

Not one day has passed since Sandy made landfall that I haven't heard from my constituents wondering when Washington will remember them. I heard the words of my good friend from Indiana. I know he is a caring person. But for decades, taxpayers from New York have sent their money when disasters occurred, such as fires on the west coast or floods in the Missouri and Mississippi Valleys, hurricanes in Louisiana or Florida, and other disasters. We have sent our tax dollars--billions of them--and now, all of a sudden, some are suggesting we should change the rules when we are hit by the first major disaster to hit the New York City region in a very long time? That is not fair. That is not right. We have argued against it, and I hope my colleagues will defeat the Lee amendment.

I also say to my colleagues that this is not just about dollars and cents. This is about people who care and are waiting--homeowners who are waiting to rebuild their homes so they can move back into them. This is about small business owners who are hanging on by a thread after building a business for 25 years. We know when the hand of God strikes, it is overwhelming.

Take Rita from Emerald Magic Lawn Care. Her company helps local families, schools, and businesses with lawn care in the spring and summer, and around the holidays they help with decorations and lights. But Emerald Magic's business was interrupted for many weeks, and the client base dried up. Rita's business will be in huge trouble. It may not survive if she doesn't get a lifeline--and get one now. So this is very important.

Week after week, month after month, New Yorkers have been told this is ``a waiting game.'' That is not an answer we can live with, and neither can they. We can't wait any longer because nothing about this disaster was a game for the family in Breezy Point or in Rockaway or in Long Island or in Queens or Staten Island. It wasn't a game for them or for the more than 265,000 small businesses whose doors are currently shuttered or the hundreds of thousands of homeowners who have severe damage to their homes. Many don't have their homes anymore. They can't wait either.

And they are not the only ones. Our schools and hospitals are still combating Sandy-related repairs. The damage to our roads and transit systems hasn't gone away in 3 months. Our coastline must be rebuilt so we are not naked if, God forbid, another Sandy occurs. New York has waited, but we can't wait any longer.

We know too well that when a major disaster strikes, it is too much for any one State or any one region to tackle. But that is what we have been left to do so far in New York, and I know the same goes for my colleagues in New Jersey. So Senators Lautenberg, Menendez, Gillibrand, and I are making a plea to our colleagues: Please, we have waited 91 long days. We can't wait any longer. Simply put, we must pass this bill today. Ninety-one days ago, Sandy struck a body blow against New York. Today, finally, we can strike back and give our people the help they need to get back on their feet and rebuild our communities.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation we are about to vote on that will provide an additional $9.7 billion to the National Flood Insurance Program. Without these funds, the program would have run out of money next week, leaving over 100,000 victims of Hurricane Sandy in the lurch.

I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for allowing this vote to go forward. They have acted honorably. The good news is the House passed this bill this morning and the Senate will pass it in a few minutes.

With the passage of this bill, hurricane victims from Staten Island to east Long Island, as well as in New Jersey, can rest assured their flood insurance will have enough money to pay out claims. We had no choice but to pass this provision because the Federal Government is obligated to reimburse when people have floods if they have paid in their flood insurance.

While this bill is important, it is something we were almost obligated to do, and we should not have parades down the street because this bill has passed.

The major work of helping the victims of Sandy is still ahead of us. The bad news is we even had to go through this dog-and-pony show in the first place.

Last month, the Senate passed a good, strong bill to help all victims of Hurricane Sandy, and the House simply could have taken it up and passed it. In fact, they promised to vote on a similar provision before the last Congress ended.

Unfortunately, this changed at the last moment. We do not need to get into the whys right now; we just want it to happen, and we are worried the second major portion of this relief bill will not get through the House in the form it should.

We need the House to pass not only the $9 billion they passed this morning but the $51 billion that contains the

bulk of the aid people need, without which we will not be able to recover. To be a bride and left at the altar once is bad enough. To be left twice would be unconscionable.

As I said, this is a good step that we are going to pass this $9 billion flood insurance bill. This is a good but small first step. It is a small downpayment on the much larger amount of aid we need to get through Congress.

Let me tell you what is not in this bill. What is not in this bill is help for every homeowner who does not have flood insurance and lost their home or suffered major damage.

Homeowners are waiting for Congress to pass relief the way we did for Irene and Katrina and so many other disasters so they can get a contractor to sign a contract, get a bank to make a loan until they know that the Federal Government will be there to reimburse, as it always has in the past.

What is not in this bill is aid to small businesses, small businesspeople who are hanging by their fingernails, who might not be able to restart their businesses unless there is Federal aid, which was already in the Senate bill. Unless it comes back from the House and we are able to pass it in the Senate, they will be hurt.

What is not in this bill is dollars to rebuild our highways and, most importantly, our mass transit systems that were flood, damaged. The MTA alone has taken out a $5 billion loan, but it will be in real financial jeopardy unless it is assured that it will be reimbursed for all the damage that Sandy caused to our railroads and our tunnels and our mass transit system--our amazing mass transit system that brings 3\1/2\ million people off and on Manhattan Island every single day.

What is not in this bill is help to bring the electricity system back up to snuff so there will not be major blackouts, so people can be assured of their electricity.

What is not in this bill is help for all of the communities that laid out hundreds of millions and billions of dollars for the cleanup. Their taxpayers will foot the bill unless Congress does what it has always done: step to the plate when a major disaster occurs and have the Federal Government help the locality. There has been a wisdom for 100 years that when an area is afflicted by a disaster, we unite as a nation and come together and help that part of the country whether it is New Mexico or California or Louisiana or Florida or Missouri or North Dakota or New York or New Jersey.

This bill is a first step to deal with flood insurance. It is the easiest part. The hard stuff is still ahead of us. We await the House returning in a week and a half, and we hope and expect, in fact, that they will vote the full $51 billion remainder. We hope and expect, in fact, that they will not put in legislative language that prevents money from getting to homeowners and communities that need it desperately right away.

The draft we have seen contains some major changes from the Senate bill that would make it very difficult for NIH, the Army Corps, and other parts of the government to spend the dollars that are needed efficiently and quickly and to place them where they go. We beseech the House to finish its business, to finish the major part of its business, and approve the $51 billion that will make up the rest of the $60.

We beseech them not to hamstring the local homeowners and businesses and governments with language that would prevent recovery. We beseech them to move quickly. Of course, the ideal would be for them to pass the same bill that the Senate passed in the waning hours of the last session. If they cannot, we will have to get legislation through the body again. But through the generosity of the majority leader, he has assured us it will be the first order of business when we return. So we have to move forward.

As we have seen, this is not going to be easy. There are many bumps in the road and obstacles that we cannot yet see. For sure they will arise and for sure we will have to grapple with them.

This vote needs to be the beginning of the process. It cannot certainly be the end, and it certainly cannot be the middle. We cannot just pass the $9 billion bill and then say that is it. We cannot let the House pass this and rest on its laurels. We in New York and New Jersey cannot let our guard down. Not until the full $60 billion arrives in New York and New Jersey can we stop working. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and then alert them to keep the victims of Sandy in New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere in their thoughts so that we can continue to support the region when we return.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased that on Friday, December 28, the Senate passed H.R. 1. I would like to outline some of the goals that I and many of my colleagues from New York have for this legislation. As you know, the Senate Appropriations Committee under the leadership of the late Chairman Inouye and now Chairman Mikulski, has put together a very robust and flexible bill that will help many victims of our damaged States, from housing to small business to transportation. The depth of the devastation to New York was significant--some estimate nearly $100 billion in damage.

When I saw whole neighborhoods in my State washed away, it was clear that significant Federal disaster funding was necessary. Although it has been 2 months since Hurricane Sandy ravaged New York, I am pleased the Senate has passed H.R. 1, with more than $60 billion in Federal funding to

aid homeowners, small businesses, hospitals, and New York's critical public infrastructure.

I spent hours with New Yorkers after the storm, and I thank my Senate colleagues for hearing their pleas and ensuring that the Federal Government has stepped up to help them in this terrible time.

I hope that our colleagues in the other body will swiftly pass H.R. 1. New Yorkers have already been waiting too long.

I would like to describe how H.R. 1 will provide Federal relief to the victims of Hurricane Sandy.

Shortly after the storm subsided, some claimed that the FEMA disaster relief fund had enough funds and that a supplemental appropriation could wait. I could not disagree more and fought hard to ensure that the bill we have today was brought to the Senate floor. H.R. 1 includes $11.5 billion for the disaster relief fund to support disaster response and recovery needs of our local governments and first responders.

H.R. 1 includes $17 billion for the community development block grant for victims of Hurricane Sandy who have lost their homes or businesses. FEMA will provide repair funding of $31,900, but for many of the 300,000 New York homeowners with significant damage, the CDBG funds are essential to cover their uninsured losses. These funds can also be used for the critical mitigation projects, such as flood proofing so that these same homeowners will be safe when the next storm comes.

H.R. 1 provides $5.4 billion in Federal funds to the Army Corps to fortify our New York coastline. From Staten Island to Montauk, the coast of New York is vulnerable to future storms. The following projects were never fully constructed due to a lack of funding and will now be eligible: South Shore of Staten Island; city of Long Beach; Rockaway beach; Coney Island; Fire Island to Montauk Point; Gilgo and Robert Moses beaches; and Asharoken Village.

As was said throughout debate on H.R. 1, disaster funding is also about prevention. It is essential that the Army Corps conduct a comprehensive flood protection study of the New York Harbor region. I hope they will get to work immediately once the bill becomes law.

H.R. 1 will also build a bridge back to profitability for our small businesses. Thousands of small business owners were inundated by Hurricane Sandy endured total destruction or interruption of commerce for days and weeks. Like we have in other storms, the community development block grant funding provided in H.R. 1 should be used for a small business relief program to boost the region's ailing posthurricane economy. I will be watching to make sure that New York small businesses who need assistance receive it.

H.R. 1 will allow for the hardening of New York's Electric Grid. I believe it is critical that drastic rate increases are prevented. The Long Island Power Authority and Con Edison need help elevating substations, installing smart grid sensors, and building stormproof poles. The duration of power outages in New York was one of the worst catastrophes of Hurricane Sandy, and we hope that these funds will mean New Yorkers never have to experience that again.

H.R.1 also will protect and improve the gasoline infrastructure in New York Harbor. Hurricane Sandy's wrath destroyed unprotected gas terminals and pipelines in New York harbor and gas shortages brought whole communities to their knees. Federal mitigation funding should and must be used to protect our gasoline infrastructure from the next storm by providing backup power and booster systems for facilities like the Buckeye pipeline.

H.R. 1 includes $10.8 billion for public transportation. New York has one of the largest public transit systems in the country and suffered over $5 billion in damage from the storm. Experts have said that much of this damage could be prevented in the future with new mitigation techniques H.R. 1 provides to ensure that our transit systems build subway seals, erect flood gates in tunnels, and establish advanced drainage systems.

H.R. 1 also includes $200 million for the Department of Health and Human Services. I hope that at least $150 million will be provided to the National Institutes of Health for repair and recovery of New York University's medical research program. The Smilow Research Center is one of NYU's three animal research facilities, and because of Hurricane Sandy, an untold amount of medical discovery and hard work has been lost. According to NYU, an estimated 10 million gallons of water poured into the ground and the basement of the institution, bending 3-inch steel doors in half, washing away walls as well as sandbags, and destroying everything in its wake.

Because of a power outage, the animal labs went dark where the best and brightest researchers search for cures and treatments. The center held specimens critical to NYU scientists' research in heart disease, cancer, and neurodegeneration. Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the NIH, said this: ``The damage is truly appalling. The infrastructure has been essentially obliterated.'' I appreciate how much assistance the NIH has already provided to NYU's researchers, and I will continue to ensure that NYU can be rebuilt.

H.R. 1 also includes Federal funds through FEMA and through the HHS social services block grant to help New York's hospitals. Hurricane Sandy caused 36 health care facilities to be closed completely, including 4 hospitals, 17 nursing homes, and 4 health clinics. It is essential that FEMA and New York State do everything they can to help our health care facilities get back on their feet.

In the blink of an eye, the Atlantic Ocean turned from our greatest natural resource into a nightmarish monster, but with the Senate passage of H.R. 1, New York is on its way to recovery.

Mr. President, this amendment, if passed, would not allow the Sandy States or future States to protect themselves against future disasters. Now, my colleague draws a very clear line between present rebuilding and protection for the future. If a dune is wiped out in Long Beach and they think it ought to be rebuilt at 7 feet rather than at 5 feet because 5 feet wouldn't be good enough, we come to the irrational conclusion that we will pay for the 5 feet and not the 7 feet. It makes no sense.

Most of the cost of rebuilding is to restore, but if there is an extra amount needed to prevent damage from a future hurricane and it is the same type of project, fine.

We have a couple of piers that actually protected the houses in the Rockaways, but they didn't build enough of them--not piers, jetties. Now, under my colleague's proposal, we could rebuild those jetties because some of them were destroyed, but we couldn't build new ones to protect the other land there except at this 65-percent level.

I can tell my colleagues that most of New York and New Jersey are dotted with little localities, and the cost of these projects is so expensive, if we say 35 percent, they won't get built, period. We will have no protection, and we will be back here sure enough when another storm occurs.

Furthermore, it is not true--Katrina Army Corps projects were funded at 100 percent. They did not call them. We didn't draw this new line between mitigation or rebuilding to protect and building for the old. They were lumped together. But the overwhelming majority of Army Corps projects for Katrina, as both of my colleagues from Louisiana can tell us, were 100 percent.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I guess I have 2 minutes for that since it is 4 minutes equally divided between the amendments. I know my colleague from Maryland will debate the other amendment.

I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment. This would require a huge amount of time and bureaucratic redtape at a time of emergency between disaster victims and the Federal assistance they deserve.

Competitive bidding is generally a good thing. It can save on costs as well as provide transparency and fraud prevention. It is important that Federal disaster assistance not be used as a slush fund for crony contracts.

Folks, we are dealing with an emergency. In most States, it takes 90 days or more. It can take 3 to 6 months. We have people who desperately need help, and we would slow the process down to a fare-thee-well if we had to invoke the same competitive bidding practice we invoke for other contracts that are not under emergency.

In fact, this is sort of catch-22. Many of our Republican colleagues say the money is spent out too slowly, and then they want to put more levels of redtape and bureaucracy slowdown. What if the contract is challenged in court? Businesses would lay fallow, homes will not be built, and it would leave shorelines unprotected and naked.

Generally, I have been a supporter of competitive bidding, but as the Scripture says: There is a time and a place for everything. When we are dealing with many aspects of an emergency, that should not happen.

My colleague on the other side, for whom I have great respect, is a true gentleman. He does what he believes and says what he believes. He votes against interests that might affect his own State when he does it. In this case, he has not made any exceptions, and that makes no sense. This will hurt people and hurt them badly. In many instances, this will end up costing us more.

Many competitively bid contracts--we have all been through this--end up in court and take years. Years during an emergency? I don't believe we should start that as a new precedent. I

would be happy to work with my colleague and refine the competitive bidding law to where it could be used appropriately, but this is a broad brush.

Mr. President, first, I wish to say I appreciate the true concern my colleague from Indiana and those who have put this amendment together have shown. He is not just giving us the back of his hand or saying: You do not need it or wait 3 months or whatever.

Unfortunately, though, it would just stop dead in its tracks the recovery efforts so desperately needed. You cannot plan a recovery on a 3-month basis. The bottom line is, if you want to build a tunnel, you cannot say: I will build one-fifth of the tunnel now, and we will see if there is more money later. If you need to build a berm of 6 feet, you cannot say: We will build it 2 feet and then see if we can build another 4 feet later. You just cannot do that.

Because of the way we all know FEMA and these other agencies work, you have to spend the money first and then they reimburse you. If they are not sure there is going to be money at the end of the road--no more after March 31; maybe Congress will, maybe Congress will not--you are going to get a lot of homeowners, small businesses, and governments not going ahead with the desperate repairs that we in New York need and the whole national economy--since we are about 10 percent of the national economy--needs.

I strongly urge the amendment--good intentioned, though, as it is--be defeated.

Mr. President, passing this bill was a very fine accomplishment. Of course, we Senators get up and stand and are very proud of it, as we should be. But without our staffs, we could not get any of this done.

So I would just like to take a few minutes to thank my staff, many of whom were personally impacted by Superstorm Sandy, who worked tirelessly to ensure that New York's needs were adequately addressed as my State continues to react and recover from Superstorm Sandy and her aftermath. Because of their hard work and tireless efforts, I know New York's needs have been addressed in the Sandy supplemental legislation that passed through the Senate earlier this evening.

My great LD Heather McHugh coordinated this effort, making sure that every type of aid was considered and included in this package. She has great knowledge of both the Senate and the House, and it was invaluable in getting this done.

My deputy chief of staff, Erin Sager Vaughan, who is so selfless and wonderful in making sure that every ``t'' is crossed and every ``i'' is dotted--I thank her as well.

Her team: Gerry Petrella did an amazing job. He is a Long Islander. He felt the impact of this storm personally, and he was there every step of the way making sure we did not leave out anything. Megan Richardson, Meghan Taira, Jonah Crane, Grant Kerr, Sean Byrne, Hana Greenberg, Veronica Duron were all exceptional on our legislative staff in bringing their expertise to help New York.

I wish to thank my press team: Brian Fallon, Max Young, Meredith Kelly, Lindsay Kryzak, Marissa Kaufman, Chris Scribner, who did a great job.

While this legislation is a tremendous accomplishment for my staff in Washington, DC, I would also like to thank members of my regional offices who not only lived through and experienced Sandy but made themselves available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to see that the needs of the people of New York would be recognized and addressed, who extended their arms to those who were in trouble.

Martin Brennan heads my New York operation. He had a torn Achilles and hobbled around in a cast, but he led our staff, as he always does, as a team and exquisitely.

Our casework team, they are seasoned. Suzie Orlove--whom I went to second grade with and has been working for me for over 30 years--Sydney Renwick, Joyce Chang, Julietta Lopez, Jackie Benavides, Karine Vorperian have spent months helping New Yorkers cut through the redtape and get the aid they need.

Nick Martin did an amazing job of connecting resources to needs across New York City and Long Island. Cody Peluso and Deanna Robertson helped make sure New York's northern suburbs were not forgotten.

Touring the damaged communities was a heart-wrenching task. Lane Bodian, who travels with me, was with me every step of the way. Our logistics team of Megan Murphy Vlasto, Jenna Jones, and Alex Victor helped make sure we got where we needed to be in those very difficult days after the storm and ever since.

Additionally, two members of my team were hit hard by the storm. They lost their houses or their houses were badly flooded. I wish to thank them because they ignored their personal situations, particularly in the days after the storm, to help New Yorkers. For that, I will always be grateful to Kyle Strober, who runs our Long Island office, and to Michelle Basic, his assistant, whose family's home was flooded badly on Staten Island.

Finally, the leader of our team is a guy named Mike Lynch, who has molded us into a great operation. He did not put his name in here, characteristically, but he deserves a huge amount of thanks.

Of course, my colleagues Senators Gillibrand, Lautenberg, Menendez, and their teams were essential. We worked as sort of a seamless web, and I look forward to working with them on the implementation of this package.

I wish to thank Senator Inouye. When he was ill, he continued to meet with Senators Gillibrand, Menendez, Lautenberg, and myself. We knew how much he cared. I know he is looking down, as I think Senator Mikulski said, and he is smiling at the good work we did in a bipartisan way to get this bill passed.

Of course, I wish to thank Senator Mikulski. This was the first bill she managed. Let it be a metaphor for all her bills: Senator Gillibrand and I have just labeled her ``the engineer.'' She led that train down the track speedily, without flaw, but carefully and was a great leader.

Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, was incredible in giving us advice and help, and even in those darkest days was there for us. The other subcommittee leaders--Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, Senator Murray--all made sure this package became a reality. Their staffs--Charlie Houy, Lilah Helms, Gabby Batkin, Chuck Keiffer, and Alex Keenan--were great.

Of course, my good friend, truly one of the closest friends I have and a great leader of this place, who understood the need and went out of his way for us, Senator Reid, was invaluable. It would not have happened without him or his amazing floor staff, led by Gary Myrick and Tim Mitchell, who gave us tremendous advice and help. So I also thank them.

Finally, I thank my Republican colleagues across the aisle for putting aside partisanship. We had real differences. But this bill was debated and conducted in the right way. We allowed a lot of amendments. They were not blocked. There were no cheap shots. It was great.

I also wish to thank Gary's colleague, Dave Schiappa, for his advice and help as well.

With that, I wish everybody a nice Saturday and see you all on Sunday.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to amend the order to allow a statement by Senator Pryor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator. The Senator was gracious. There are two separate issues here, one of which I think most of us on this side would accept. The other we could not. To lump them together would have tied two issues together that were not fair. The Senator from Oklahoma was extremely gracious. He said right away: We will divide them. He did not have to do that. I very much appreciate that.

I have a lot I want to say in reference to my good friend from Oklahoma, but I know my colleagues from Oregon and Michigan have a time commitment, so I am just going to ask unanimous consent that they be allowed to offer their amendment and then I, using our time on this amendment.

Then I will go after the Senator from Oklahoma as well.

Let me ask unanimous consent that first, for 5 minutes, the Senators from Michigan and Oregon introduce their amendment, then the Senator from Oklahoma sums up, and then that I be given time to rebut their amendments.

No problem.

I thank my colleague and very much appreciate my colleague from Oklahoma. He has left, but we do have a friendship. I do believe he is a person of integrity. His views about government and politics are quite different from mine. He has put his money where his mouth is in a number of places when he has not asked to pay for things that many on the other side did, et cetera. So I thank him.

I don't agree with almost anything--well, I agree with maybe one or two of his amendments. And Senator Mikulski summed up the amendment on fisheries very well, so I will talk about some of the other amendments and why we object to them. It will take a few minutes, but I think it is important to set the record straight.

Let me take them in numerical order--first, amendment No. 3368, to strike enhanced cost share for the Army Corps. Well, Mr. President, in past supplementals we established an important precedent for local cost share on Army Corps projects that this amendment will strike. We have crucial projects with the Army Corps. As my colleague from New York, Senator Gillibrand, knows, and Senators Menendez and Lautenberg from New Jersey, we are naked in heavily populated areas after the storm. This storm was huge. But you would have to be foolish to think there won't be another one, and we need the Army Corps. They are brilliant in the way they are able to protect our coasts. So this needs to be done.

If the local cost share were to go to 35 percent--we don't have just one big State government, we have lots of little localities. Take Long Beach, a city of 35,000. It was wiped out--gone, basically. If they were to have to come up with 35 percent of the project, it would be hopeless.

Now, Katrina got 100 percent. We are not even asking for that. But the 90 percent that has traditionally been given to Army Corps projects when the damage is so large that it is realized the locality cannot pay for it alone makes eminent sense. The village of Lindenhurst, the village of Massapequa, the villages on Fire Island all do not have the wherewithal.

If we were to pass the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, we would get no Army Corps relief. Then when storms much smaller than Sandy come along, we would be wiped out again. So it doesn't make sense. The Long Beach Storm Damage Reduction Project, for instance, has a local cost share of $35 million. That is more than a quarter of the entire city's annual budget. If they had to pay this share, it wouldn't get built. The same thing for the little village of Asharoken, which was terribly damaged.

Again, in the past, when there has been large damage, the Army Corps has paid 90 percent, localities 10 percent. To change those rules now for New York, after New York taxpayers and New Jersey taxpayers paid hundreds of millions of dollars toward projects on the Mississippi or the Missouri River or down in the gulf at a 90-10 percent ratio, would be totally unfair.

This amendment would be a crippling amendment, and I strongly urge its rejection.

On fisheries, again, my colleague from Maryland, our wonderful new chair--off to a great start, and I might say, Madam Chair, this being your first bill, you are going like gangbusters, but we didn't expect anything less--has laid out the arguments for those fisheries. The only thing I would say about them is, hey, that is a disaster too. As she said, this is not just a case of needing new lobster pots, this is a disaster, and traditionally we have funded disaster relief in supplemental bills, and it doesn't have to be just one area.

So I thank my colleagues, particularly those from Maine and from Alaska, who put such good work into this, and I also again thank Senator Coburn for separating out the tax cheat provisions. Nobody behind in their taxes should get Federal aid. That is a provision I can accept and I think most of us on this side will accept.

Amendment No. 3371 is the Coburn amendment on the per capita damage thresholds. The amendment would require FEMA to actually change the indicator by which FEMA determines the locality's eligibility for FEMA public assistance. It would make it much harder for States and local governments in the future to get Federal aid after a disaster. It sounds benign, but

this is a choke hold on FEMA for many localities and particularly for larger States, such as those we represent.

As my colleagues know, the current per capita damage thresholds are pegged to the Consumer Price Index, and CPI measures the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a specific market of basket goods.

For New York, the per capita threshold that has to be reached for a county to be declared a major disaster area is $1.37. The amendment of my colleague would peg the per capita threshold starting at the timeline of 1986. There would have to be such enormous damage in so many localities to get money, and in effect it would double the per damage threshold needed to be declared a disaster area.

In every State, we have watched as disasters occurred and kept our fingers crossed to see if the Federal Government would declare that area a disaster. It is based on a formula. The formula is not easy to reach. I have had countless counties disappointed, asking me: Why didn't we meet the threshold? But to now make the threshold almost doubly hard to meet wouldn't work.

I say to my good friend from Oklahoma--and I know this may not change his view on the amendment because, as I said, he is a person of integrity--for the six major disaster declarations declared in Oklahoma over the last 2 years, the damage per person would have had to be double its current level. I imagine those in Oklahoma who were impacted by severe winter storms, tornadoes, and floods wouldn't be happy to hear it is harder now--if this amendment were to pass--to repair roads, remove debris, and support emergency response efforts.

So I would say to every one of my colleagues in every State, if you want to pull back on Federal disaster assistance by changing to an arcane formula when there is substantive damage, support this amendment. I hope we will reject it.

The next amendment is No. 3382, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this. This would place a lot more bureaucratic redtape between disaster victims and the Federal assistance they deserve.

Our good friend from Louisiana coached Senator Menendez, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Lautenberg, and myself about what went wrong with Katrina, and one of those things was that the contracting procedure had become so arcane and so rigid and so difficult that contracts either never happened or they took much too long to do. Now, should we expect every contract to be competitively bid? What about emergency contracts? Do we want to have a 6-month bidding process when the damage needs correction in 90 days--picking up debris, building back a beach that might face a storm in 30 days? Second, we in New York have our own competitive bidding requirements. Those can suffice. Why have double sets of them? And sometimes the States and localities have to waive them when there are true emergencies.

So sometimes our colleagues are placing us in a catch-22. They say: You don't spend disaster relief fast enough; you stretch it out over such long periods of time. Then they impose requirements that make sure we don't spend the money fast enough. It doesn't make sense.

If the amendment by Senator Coburn passes, it will guarantee disaster aid could be delayed for months and years, and the consequences of that--the economic cost, the danger to our coastlines, our localities, our small businesses, and the human cost--would be a terrible, terrible way to go. I believe this is a Trojan horse that will cripple efforts to bring quick, efficient, and honest disaster aid to our localities, and I urge its defeat.

Amendment No. 3383. This strikes ACOE studies and authorization. Now, again, we don't want the rules changed on us. Sometimes we have improved the rules to make sure we learn from the mistakes of past disasters, but to just change the rules from past supplementals makes no sense.

As many of us here know, the project of getting coastal protection built by the Army Corps can be mired in redtape and delays. Every one of us has experience there. What is taking you so long, Army Corps? The provision being struck by amendment No. 3383 is designed to accelerate critical protection projects and get rid of the redtape.

I know my colleague from Oklahoma believes in less bureaucracy and more efficiency. Well, if this passed, we would be giving the people of Staten Island or Massapequa more bureaucracy. For a decade, for instance, the Corps had delayed a protection project for the South Shore of Long Island due to lack of funding and authorizations from Congress. They decided and they said it made sense, but they didn't get it done. Had these seawalls been built, it is almost certain lives would have been saved and millions of dollars in property damage avoided.

So in this bill, such as with Katrina, we are accelerating the ability to do that. We are accelerating it in Long Beach. In 2005 Long Beach rejected a project I helped to push to build dunes to protect that flat, low-lying area with low-lying homes from storms. The Army Corps has done the study. The Army Corps has said: Here is what is right; let's move forward. Under the amendment of my friend, we could not, even though all the preliminary work has been done.

So I urge a ''no'' vote on this amendment.

OK, I think I have addressed the major amendments to which I object. As I said, I don't object to every one of my colleagues' amendments, but I object to the major ones, and I hope we can have a bipartisan amendment.

Mr. President, for 100 years, when disaster has struck, we have been one America. We have said: We know any locality, even large localities such as New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, won't be able to handle that sort of disaster relief on its own. And in wisdom, we have said: We are one united people. And the people of the other regions, the other States, will come to the aid of this area that has been crippled. We can't change the rules now.

Those of us from New York and New Jersey say: Aha. Some of my constituents and I am sure some of the constituents of Senator Menendez are saying: Aha--now that it is New York and New Jersey, they are changing the rules. Not fair. We have been there. We have been there for our colleagues whenever they have had disasters, and praise God, we haven't had that many until recently, but we need you.

You will need us. Given all the changes in the world, there will be disasters that strike everywhere else. We want to be with you, and we don't want to see the process so encumbered and so weighted down that relief cannot come. The sum total of these amendments would be to do that.

I strongly urge my colleagues, hopefully in a bipartisan vote, to reject them.

I yield the floor to my colleague from New Jersey.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Friday, December 1, when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 1, the legislative vehicle for the Sandy supplemental, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments to the bill under the previous order; that all remaining time under the previous order with respect to the amendments be yielded back; that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote, with the exception of the following: 4 minutes equally divided prior to each of the votes in relation to the Coburn amendments; 10 minutes equally divided prior to the votes in relation to each of the Paul amendments; 8 minutes equally divided prior to the vote in relation to the McCain amendment No. 3355; and 10 minutes equally divided prior to the vote in relation to the Lee amendment; and that all other provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

I said December 1--wishful thinking. The order should say Friday, December 28.

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 therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from the following postal naming bills en bloc: H.R. 2338 and H.R. 3892; that the Senate proceed to their consideration and the consideration of the following bills, en bloc, which were received from the House and are at the desk: H.R., 3869, H.R. 4389, H.R. 6260, H.R. 6379, and H.R. 6587.

I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate; and that any related statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 3667 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.