Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m. on Friday, December 28, 2012; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 5949, the FISA bill, under the previous order; and that following the disposition of H.R. 5949, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1, the legislative vehicle for the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, under the previous order; and further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for caucus meetings.

Mr. President, the first vote tomorrow will be at approximately 9:45 a.m. There will be several rollcall votes beginning at that time in order to complete action on the FISA bill and on the supplemental bill. Additional rollcall votes in relation to executive nominations are possible as well.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, first, I wish to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. He didn't try to knock out the whole thing and we appreciate that. Having said that, I urge any of my colleagues in disaster areas to think very carefully before they vote for this. This will be the first time ever when a disaster is declared that we have offset money for it. That will mean that disaster money will be much less readily available in the future. The precedent is an awful one. It is something that goes against 100 years of Democrats, Republicans-- north, east, south, and west--voting to, when one area has trouble, send the money, without spending months and months and months fighting about whether to cut this or cut that or raise these taxes or do this or that to offset.

I would say we had this fight when Irene came about, and 19 of our colleagues came to the wisdom that it was a bad idea to offset it, and we didn't.

So I urge and plead with my colleagues, on this quick notice to reverse 100 years of decisionmaking and start invoking offsets for disaster, which this is--it is mitigation. We have always done mitigation. It means that instead of rebuilding in the floodplain, we build in a different place nearby. It means instead of putting all of these machines that are flooded in the basement, we put them on the third floor. It means if there is a beach that is not protected, we build a berm. That is mitigation. It is all related to protecting from a disaster and not making the same mistake of building in a floodplain or not protecting in a subway or whatever.

We have always done it. We have never offset mitigation, and it has been in every disaster relief. So I plead with my colleagues to think twice.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, first, I would like to congratulate Senator Mikulski on a fine first day on the floor as chair of Appropriations. We are all excited about it on both sides of the aisle and expect great things of that committee next year. Perhaps there will be a change--we will get appropriations bills done, get them on the floor, and move them under her leadership.

I also want to thank Senator Landrieu, who is not here, who really helped out as well, as well as Senator Murray and Senator Feinstein. I thank them very much.

I also thank the staff, which really is professional. In England, they are a civil service. It is the highest calling, it is professional, and it works hard no matter who is in charge. They do a great job. You are our English civil service, which is a very high compliment.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to say goodbye to my friend, Senator Daniel K. Inouye. This week in the Senate, we lost a colleague, a mentor, and a compass, and what is more our country lost one of the greatest heroes of the ``Greatest Generation''.

We are a Nation that still holds its heroes dear, and that is why it is so hard to say goodbye to Danny.

I can think of no place more fitting to say one last ``Aloha'' than at the very center of this Nation's Capitol Building as Danny rested under the Dome yesterday, which is the symbol of freedom to the entire world and the very freedom he gave so much of himself to protect.

And protect it he did. Danny stood up and fought the racial stereotypes that would have kept Japanese Americans from joining their friends and brothers in World War II. His service in France and Italy, including his heroic battle in Tuscany which earned him our highest military honor, helped fight the spread of evil and hate and religious persecution. In Congress, Danny kept a constant vigil in the service of the people of Hawaii, making sure our 50th State was as well represented as any of the original 13.

As we have gathered to honor him over the past 2 days here in Washington and will continue to gather over this weekend in Hawaii, to thank him, and to say a final farewell, we will be a Congress united. Not conservatives or liberals, Democrats or Republicans, 99 percent or 1 percent. We stand together just as Danny saw us all: as Americans.

Danny was a friend. Quick with a word of advice or encouragement, loyal to his friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in Danny's passing we lost a man who could bridge any divide. We lost a man who led in his platoon, in his caucus, and in his beloved home State of Hawaii.

Danny will be missed by this body and by his friends on both sides of the aisle. But it is my hope his spirit will remain with us, and help ensure that the next generation of heroes has the same freedoms he held so dear. We will never stop fighting to protect them, Danny. Mahalo and Aloha.

Mr. President, first, I wish to thank our chairman of the Judiciary Committee and ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee for his leadership, his caring, his concern, and his expertise. The people of New York are very grateful to the Senator from Vermont for his concern and caring. We thank him for that very much.

Today we begin debate on one of the most momentous proposals to effect New York's future that we have ever debated, a proposal equal in magnitude and importance to the debate about aid to New York after the horrible attacks on our city on 9/11. I must say the debate is off to a good start. Our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have shown tremendous concern. Leader Reid has agreed to allow amendments so that those in this Chamber, particularly those on the other side, can make modifications. Leader McConnell and the Republican minority have not insisted on a motion to proceed. So we are beginning this bill in very auspicious way, in a way that people think the Senate should work, not one side blocking amendments and not the other side blocking the bill. I hope it can lead to an equally auspicious result.

I rise today to discuss the greatest natural disaster in the history of my State and the importance of passing

the President's request--the President's full request for supplemental disaster aid.

As you know, Mr. President, Superstorm Sandy was a catastrophic shock to the coastline of the Northeastern United States. In the blink of an eye, the Atlantic Ocean turned from our greatest natural resource into a nightmarish monster, swallowing whole communities in its path. The beating heart for many parts of the Nation's economy, New York City, was paralyzed for days, and parts are paralyzed to this moment. Whole neighborhoods, from Long Bench, NY, to Long Beach Island, NJ, were ripped from their foundations and washed away. I saw whole communities where almost every house suffered severe damage, where the water came in, because of the geography, from the north and south and sometimes from the north, the south, and the west. I saw the devastation. It was incredible. You know that when God's hand strikes, those who are affected are usually severely hurt--a tornado, a forest fire, a flood, a hurricane.

What was incredible about this disaster was not the depth of it--we have always seen the depth of tragedies from natural disasters with our constituents--but it was the combination of the depth and the breadth. It was not just one small area in which a tornado, say, lighted down and then left; it was a huge swath of territory, all flooded by a perfect storm, a huge nor'easter that combined with a tropical storm, a full Moon, and a high tide.

Experts had said the East River, the Hudson River, Great South Bay would never rise--never--more than 11 feet above its previous record, and in place after place that record was exceeded, unfortunately, with terrible, tragic consequences to that occurrence.

The tragic storm was an unfortunate wake-up call for New York and the rest of the country that we need to do much more at the Federal level, the State level, and the local level to prepare, protect, and fortify our vulnerable infrastructure from future storm surge activity. Our region suffered, according to mainstream estimates, nearly $100 billion worth of damage. That is just the damage that has been measured up to now. We are going to see future damage that has not yet been uncovered, estimated, or even found.

Governors Cuomo and Christie requested about $80 billion of recovery and mitigation funds. President Obama called for approximately $60 billion. He scrubbed the proposals of our Governors. OMB was very careful. They spent about a week looking over the proposals and tried to narrow it down to the most essential and most immediate needs. Our delegation--Democrats and Republicans from the New York-New Jersey area--believes that $60 billion is a fair starting point.

The damage numbers are mind-blowing. Here are a few examples. This is from New York alone. New Jersey received almost as much damage as New York. Transportation: $7.3 billion. Our subway system, which is an amazing system--it brings 3\1/2\ million people on and off Manhattan every day--the subway and railroad system was devastated. Much of it was built over 100 years ago. There was no thought of such floods, and the system was unprotected. Housing: $9.6 billion. Mr. President, 305,000 homes, according to the Governor's estimate, have already applied for insurance in New York alone.

My good colleague from Louisiana is here. She has been invaluable in guiding us, helping us, and being at our side. She has been through this. She knows better than any other Member of this Chamber, I daresay, what this kind of disaster can do, but more importantly for us, she knows how to deal with these problems because she has been through it. She is recommending to us to keep the places where the Federal response worked and modify the responses in places where the Federal response did not. That has been invaluable. I take off my hat. I speak on behalf of all of us in the northeast area to the Senator, the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Anyway, in Katrina about 270,000 homes received that type of damage, so we have many more homes damaged, gone, flooded.

This is a picture, by the way, of the 86th Street subway, way up in Manhattan, far away from the points of New York Harbor. But there was so much flooding--look at it. Remember, this water is saltwater. It corrodes every signal, every light. If it were freshwater, the damage from this storm would have been a lot less. There it is, 86th Street.

I mentioned that homes were destroyed. Here are two examples. This is a house on Staten Island. Whole communities like Midland Beach were totally upended. Water was 6, 7, 8, 10 feet high. It did not just go in 1 street but 10 streets, the powers of the ocean were such. Home after home looked like this. It is incredible. I have held these homeowners in my arms--children, women, grown men who were distraught about the future. Who can blame them?

Here is another. In some places, because the saltwater created fire in the electrical systems of the houses, whole communities were knocked out. In Breezy Point, 101 homes burned to the ground amidst the rain and the wind because the water systems--when the electricity failed, the firefighters could not pump, and the fires spread from house to house to house.

There is a shrine here. It is a statue of the Virgin Mary. It is the only thing left in this whole area. Now people come and place flowers and pray and meditate by that statue.

Incidentally, one of the homes that was destroyed was that of our Congress Member, Congressman Turner of Brooklyn and Queens, Republican of Brooklyn and Queens, whose home was destroyed out in Breezy Point.

Utilities were $1.5 billion. Many of our utilities were outdated, no question. They had no way to communicate. But even if they weren't, because their power lines are above ground, not below, they suffered huge damage, as did people.

Four major hospitals are still closed--thousands of beds. They range from Long Beach Hospital, a hospital that serves a local community that is right on the waterfront, to NYU, New York University Hospital, which is one of the great research and teaching facilities in America. It alone lost over $1 billion of equipment.

They were told by the companies that make their machinery--the radio coaxial tomography, the MRIs--to put them in the basement because these machines have to be carefully calibrated given the sea level and the slight slant of the floor. They were all washed away, $1 billion of machinery, not to mention decades of research.

I visited--I think they call it the vivarium. It is where the animals are that they have done genetic experiments on. The white mice that they test for generation after generation were wiped out.

Government and schools were $2 billion. Government buildings were destroyed. I think we have over 40 schools in New York City that were destroyed, mostly by the water. Roads, bridges, you name it--the devastation is everywhere. It is wide, and it is deep.

So with this kind of devastation, even a large area such as New York cannot handle it on its own. Fortunately, we have had a wisdom here in this government for close to a century; that is, when nature strikes, when the hand of God comes down on Earth and creates the kind of damage that man can't comprehend, no locality can handle it on its own, then the Federal Government steps in, which means the country as a whole steps in. When there were hurricanes in Louisiana and Mississippi, the whole country stepped in. We said: We know this is too much for you to handle alone. When there were forest fires out west, the whole country stepped in, saying: We know you can't handle this kind of devastation on your own. When there was flooding in the Missouri and Mississippi valleys, the Federal Government came in.

We in New York--hundreds of millions--over the decades, probably billions of our tax dollars went to help these regions, and I never heard any complaints about it. We are one Nation. When one part of our Nation suffers, we all suffer, particularly in these days of an interrelated economy. New York buys billions of dollars of products from New Jersey and the rest of the country, and so people did it.

Now, of course, the devastation has hit us, and we know our colleagues will stand by us as we have stood by them. We know they will give a careful look

to our proposal, but they will not deliberately put barriers in the way because they don't want to treat New York differently. They don't want to treat New Jersey differently than they treated the others.

We have heard three questions about this package, and the questions are these:

First, should we have offsets to the monies that are proposed here?

Now, we have not done that in the long history of disasters, for a good reason. You will never get the disaster money if you have to pit an existing Federal program against disaster money. We have always said that disaster is treated separately, and we would hope that would continue. It would not be fair or right to do this now. I would say to my colleagues, if we begin a pattern of offsetting now--there was some attempt to do it with Irene, but in a bipartisan way we rejected that in this body. If your whole area is hit next and you have to sit there and wait while Congress fights over offsets, what are you going to do? It would be an awful precedent to start that.

Second, we have heard: Why--what is this mitigation?

Some people have used the word ``stimulus'' to be equal to ``mitigation.'' The two words are totally different. As I understand stimulus, in the stimulus bill there was a percentage of programs that were put in that had nothing do with the stimulus, and that was probably a mistake. I don't think it was a large percentage of the stimulus, but it sure stuck in people's minds.

Any proposal that has nothing to do with a storm, a natural disaster, shouldn't be in this proposal. We agree to that. We believe OMB has scrubbed it, so there is no stimulus-type money here. There is mitigation money. What does mitigation mean? Mitigation means, quite frankly, that you rebuild but you rebuild in such a way that if, God forbid, there is another storm, you don't suffer the same damage. You don't put all those machines in the basement of NYU again; you move them up to the third floor even if it costs a little more. You don't simply rebuild the South Street subway station the exact same way; you put in either steel doors or those air bag-type things so that if, God forbid, another flood comes, the station won't be flooded and we won't have to spend the money all over again. Mitigation means that if the dunes are wiped out across the Rockaways and Long Beach, you build them up. You probably build them up a little higher so the damage--God forbid another storm comes--won't be as great and the expense won't be as great. We have always done mitigation. It has always been part of our bill.

I am glad to see my good friend from Mississippi here, who has been of such help and encouragement to us. All of us in New York and New Jersey so appreciate his wise, quiet, kind, and intelligent counsel.

I remember there was a proposal on the floor after Katrina. There was a railroad that was very close to the shore. Yes, it would have cost more money to rebuild the railroad a distance inland. I don't remember how much. I think it was about a mile inland, and it cost about $700 million more to do. Senator Cochran and Senator Lott made the argument on the floor, and it made sense to me, and I voted for it. I think all of us in the Northeast did. So mitigation makes sense.

The third argument we have heard, which is probably the one gaining the most weight now, is let's just spend a year of this money now, and we will see what happens later.

That would be nice, but there are three things wrong with that. First, sort of esoteric--it is the way we budget. We have outlays, and we have budget authority. While the outlays may not be great for this year because not all the money will be spent, we have always had budget authority that recognizes that things take more than a year to build. To cut back on the budget authority, not the outlays, would be against the way we budget around here and a new double standard, I would think, that would tie us up in knots in the future.

The second argument: How can you build a year at a time when many of these projects take more than a year to design, plan, and construct?

We have to redo the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel--the largest underwater tunnel in the world, certainly in the country. Are we going to say: We will give you enough money to build a quarter of it today, and then come back next year and see if we should build a second quarter. No business would work that way. No government should work that way. Most of these projects need to begin now but may take more than a year. To say we are only giving money for the year doesn't make much sense. That is the second argument against this 1-year policy.

Third is the way FEMA and many of these agencies work. They don't reimburse you ahead of time. You don't submit a proposal and say: My house has $80,000 worth of damage. Send me the money, FEMA, and then I will hire a contractor and pay for it.

No, no. What FEMA tells the government, individuals, small businesses--it says: You go contract it. We will approve that that is actually the money that was needed due to the storm, and then we will pay you.

So if we don't have the money there now, how can we expect businesses and homeowners and governments to outlay billions of dollars that are needed and hope that maybe next year, we might allocate some money? It will at best dramatically slow down the growth or the rebuilding we desperately need, and it could halt it in its tracks.

There has been a CBO study that says that only a small amount of the money will be paid for now. But the CBO study, like many things CBO does--we all know this--was based on very narrow assumptions that don't apply. Let me give an example. There is $17 billion of CDBG money requested. That is where most of the help is. Senator Cochran and Senator Landrieu learned this when they had their problems. It goes for the housing and some of the other things, and it gives a little flexibility to the governments that they need--not a wide berth but a little more flexibility.

CBO said that only $75 million of it would be spent this year. Well, that was based on an old program that existed during Katrina. It was based on the fact that many of those who were hurt in the area, particularly in New Orleans, fled, and it took them months and months to even come back, let alone begin building homes. It was based not on the new legislation that has been proposed--which allows building to occur quickly and more easily based on some of the recommendations of my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu--but on the old stuff.

CBO said we will only spend, I believe it is $1.8 billion on transportation this year. The MTA has already bonded for $4.6 billion in repairs they need to make over the next 2 years.

It makes no sense, and I think there is a chart here--it says ``point to chart,'' but there is none, so I would point to the atmosphere. It just didn't match up to what the MTA's needs were. When I told the MTA what the CBO said, they said, ``What planet are they on?'' The FTA is now going to be the spend-out program. That was a recommendation made by the folks from the Gulf States after Katrina.

The FTA said it is much better to have a transit agency deal with rebuilding transit than to have FEMA do it; payout would be much quicker. But CBO based its estimates on the old FEMA model because they don't work on new models. We have learned that in the health care and other debates.

So the CBO study is wrong. It is just wrong. Those are the three arguments made against it, and none of them really hold up.

I say to my colleagues, if you can find stuff that is not disaster related in here, that is a legitimate argument, and we will work with you and scour the package more. But on offsets, on mitigation, and on this idea, let's just give the money needed for 1 year and wait and see what happens in the second year. You just can't rebuild an area if you do those things, most of which are counterintuitive.

There are a few more points I wish to make. New York has to do several things at once. We have to simultaneously rebuild, but we also have to protect against future storms, and to rebuild now makes sense and to protect makes sense. We can either invest in protections now or we will pay later. That is vital to know.

Second, I would make the point that within about 2 weeks after Katrina,

Congress passed $61 billion in aid. This idea we are moving much too quickly is belied by what happened there.

Third, on the issue of mitigation, the Stafford Act says there is a need and an ability to do mitigation. And in fact, it has shown that $1 invested in mitigation saves $4 down the road. So we have lots of things here that are brought up legitimately but don't make sense.

In conclusion--and after this I want to say a brief word about what happened at Sandy Hook, so close to my area--I hope we can come together in a bipartisan way and pass this legislation. I appreciate so much that we are off to a good start--no blocking the motion to proceed and allowance of amendments--and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to solve this serious problem.

Newtown, Connecticut Tragedy

I will be very brief, Mr. President, but I wanted to say a few words about Sandy Hook.

I rise this afternoon to join our Nation in grieving for the 28 lives that were lost at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut on Friday. Words are not sufficient to describe the horror we feel as a Nation as the days go by and the events of last week gradually sink in. I see the pictures in the newspapers of these beautiful young children and, like others, I don't know what to do. There is a lump in the throat, and I wish I could make it go away. I wish this man who did the shooting didn't exist or didn't do what he did. It is horrible.

I read about the parents of the 300 or 400 children in the school who were brought to a firehouse, and as they found their child had survived, the names of the parents were called out so they could reunite with their kids. As the numbers grew less and less and less, imagine being in the group that remained. Horrible, just horrible.

Today the conversation turns to what do we do about this and what do we do about gun violence. I believe we need a new way forward on guns that breaks through the gridlock that has paralyzed us on this issue. We cannot have each side just yelling at each other and accomplishing nothing. We cannot be gridlocked on this issue as we are on others. Both sides need to recognize something. Those of us who are pro gun control have to realize there are large parts of the country where guns are a way of life.

I know a little bit. When I was a kid, I got instructions on how to shoot a .22 rifle from an NRA-trained supervisor at my camp--summer camp--and I wasn't a bad shot. I won a couple of those merit badges for marksmanship and sharpshooter. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit with our colleague Ben Nelson. He took me out pheasant hunting. I enjoyed the experience. So we have to acknowledge that guns are a way of life and that the second amendment has a rightful place in the Constitution. We cannot interpret the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments as broadly as possible and then say the second amendment should be seen through a pinhole of militias, that it only affects militias. That is only fair. But then our colleagues on the other side must acknowledge that, yes, there is a second amendment right--and by the way, the Heller decision now makes that the law of the land, so I hope our folks who are pro gun realize no one is going to take their guns away. Before the Heller decision there was a view every bit of gun control is a way to eventually confiscate the hunting rifle your Uncle Tommy gave you when you were 12 years old. But there is a Heller decision and that is a bulwark against it.

I think those of us on the gun control side should accept it, that it is only fair, only right the second amendment to the Constitution is there just as the others are and deserves respect and not an endless effort to chip away at it. But then our colleagues on the pro gun side should admit another thing, and that is that no amendment is absolute. As important as it is, as constitutional, as enshrined as it is, no amendment is absolute.

Take the first amendment. We can't falsely scream fire in a crowded theater. That creates such danger. That is an impingement on someone's first amendment rights. We have anti-child pornography laws. We should have them, but that too is a limitation on the first amendment. Even libel laws, in a pure first amendment world, you could say and defame anything about anybody you wanted. We say no. That is a limitation on the first amendment. Well, just as there can be limitations on the first amendment, and yet the essence of the first amendment is preserved, the same should be true of the second amendment.

I was the author of the Brady law. I don't think it has interfered with a legitimate owner's right to have a gun in all the years it has been around, while at the same time it has saved tens of thousands of lives. There are some on the extreme side of the right who say: Oh, no, get rid of the Brady law. They believe the second amendment should be absolute. But they are wrong.

I would argue that other changes--making it harder for mentally ill people to get guns or saying assault weapons are weapons of war and don't belong on our streets but belong on the battlefield--do not interfere with the enjoyment I experienced when I went hunting with Ben Nelson, nor with the right of a small shopowner in a bad neighborhood who feels he needs a gun or she needs a gun to protect themselves.

We can come together. There can be a way of moving forward in the middle, with the left admitting the second amendment is important and as much a part of the Constitution as the others, and with the right admitting that limitations on that amendment--as there are limitations on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth--do not interfere with the fundamental right and, in fact, that no amendment can be absolute.

I believe you can be both pro gun and pro gun safety just as you can be in favor of free speech but also against child pornography.

We need to start this conversation now, without delay. We owe it to ourselves as a Nation but in particular to our children.

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

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

Madam President, I rise in support of each of these judges, both fine citizens of New York. First, I will speak about Judge Geraci.

I rise in strong support of an outstanding nominee for the Federal bench in the Western District of New York, Judge Frank Paul Geraci, Jr., to the Federal district court in the Western District of our State, which serves two large metropolitan areas, Rochester and Buffalo. These cities are large, vibrant centers of the commercial and legal communities of our State. In fact, each metropolitan area has a population of over 1 million residents.

Judge Geraci has been an important and respected part of this community for his entire life. Born in Rochester, he graduated from McQuaid Jesuit High School. He left New York long enough to earn both his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Dayton in Ohio, staying within the Jesuit fold, I might add, by attending that institution. He returned to Rochester and immediately leapt into public service, working for 5 years in the Monroe County District Attorney's Office and rising to become chief of the Special Investigations Bureau. Judge Geraci then contributed another 4 years of distinguished service to Rochester as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Western District. In 1988, he left and founded his own law firm.

I was particularly impressed, as I got to know Judge Geraci, by the fact that while he was in private practice, he also served as a mediator and expert in alternative dispute resolution. I have come to believe, as a Senator from a State with among the heaviest caseloads in the country, that an important part of managing a docket is getting parties to talk to each other before they are staring at an imminent trial date.

It is likely that few nominees know this truth better than Judge Geraci. Over and above his dispute resolution experience, he has been a judge in the city of Rochester, in Monroe County, and on the bench of the New York State Supreme Court for 20 years.

I have served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for my entire time in the Senate--since 1998--and I served on the House Judiciary Committee for 18 years before that.

Rarely, if ever, have I encountered a candidate who so perfectly combines judicial experience, judicious temperament, and complete dedication to his community as Judge Geraci.

Taken together, the breadth and depth of his professional experience in both the State and Federal system, civil and criminal, make him a perfect fit for the Federal bench in Rochester. But Judge Geraci's sterling qualifications do not stop there. His dedication to his community, it is no exaggeration to say, is legendary. When you mention his name, people say: Of course, what a great and obvious choice.

Monroe County is small enough that members of the bar all know him but large enough that many lawyers, like Judge Geraci, do have the opportunity to have varied and deep experience. Judge Geraci has worked for the bar and bench on issues such as criminal case management and jury diversification. He has served on boards and governing bodies of diocese Catholic schools. He even has conducted court tours, coached girls' basketball, and served as the president of the local Little League.

Judge Geraci has earned the admiration of the people of western New York and, in turn, they deserve no less than an accomplished lawyer of his intelligence and magnanimity to serve on the Federal bench. I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to discuss such a fine man.

I will conclude with one final observation. The seat for which Judge Geraci is about to be confirmed has been vacant since March of 2009, making it a judicial emergency vacancy. His is one of 13 remaining judicial

nominations on the calendars, 11 of whom have received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. I hope we can continue to move these other nominees.

I thank the Chair.

(Mr. Franken assumed the chair.)

Now, Mr. President, I have a second nominee to speak about. We are voting at 2:15, as I understand it, so there is plenty of time to wax on the fine qualifications of both of these new additions to the bench.

I am extremely pleased to rise today in enthusiastic support of the nomination of Lorna Schofield to the Federal bench in the Southern District of New York at the other end of our State.

I have had the privilege to recommend a number of truly outstanding nominees to become judges in New York--in fact, 15 nominees--and Ms. Schofield is among the best. She is the embodiment of three qualities I search for in judicial nominee candidates: excellence--they should be legally excellent, no hacks; moderation--they should not be too far right or too far left because then they want to turn the law to their own purpose rather than interpret it; and diversity--I try to bring diversity in every way to the bench in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion because that is for the good of America.

First, her excellence. Her professional resume puts her right at top of her field. She went to Indiana University for her undergraduate studies and then came to New York to study law at one of the Nation's best law schools, NYU Law School, where she graduated as one of the top 15 students in her class. She went on to serve the public as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York and then to join a top law firm, Debevoise & Plimpton. She has been there for 25 years.

Ms. Schofield has a wealth of practical experience, having represented and advised all manner of clients in the ``real world'' of New York City--businesses large and small and individuals. As a true generalist, she has tried a wide variety of cases, and her professional accomplishments and accolades are numerous, including serving as the head of the litigation section--the largest section--of the American Bar Association. She was, in fact, a pioneer in this position as the first Asian American to hold this prestigious post.

Second, on the point of moderation, when I met Ms. Schofield, I was struck by the fact that she has one singular agenda: preservation of the rule of law. Indeed, her professional work has been devoted to the general improvement of the practice of law and to zealously representing her clients in the best and most ethical traditions of the profession. Evidence of her moderation can be found in the support she has across the political spectrum. Both Democrats and Republicans have called me to tell me what a great judge she would make. She has done everything from teaching trial advocacy to performing pro bono work for the Women's Prison Association.

Finally, diversity. I like to have diversity on the bench. Ms. Schofield's personal background and life experience will help broaden the perspective of the Federal bench. Most notably, if confirmed, she will become the first Filipino judge, man or woman, to sit on the Federal bench. So the great nation of the Philippines, which contributes so many immigrants and then citizens to our country, can be very proud that Ms. Schofield has risen to this high post once she is confirmed.

In conclusion, I believe she will make a terrific judge, and I look forward to her confirmation today.

I yield the floor.

Will the assistant majority leader yield?

Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Madam President, we saw what happened here--the minority leader filibustering his own bill. He should have trusted his first instincts. Imagine if we would have passed the minority leader's resolution: The markets would have been jubilant, stocks

would have gone up, one of the great specters hanging over our economy--that we would not raise the debt ceiling--would have been greatly mitigated in terms of damage and danger. We could move on to the real issues of dealing with the fiscal cliff and dealing with our debt situation and not have a debt ceiling hanging out there as a diversionary but dangerous issue.

But for some reason--inexplicable--the minority leader, the Republican leader, changed his mind. Now he said on the floor, well, important measures deserve 60 votes. But when he brought it up earlier, he acted as if he was in favor of it. He was offering it. Now, of course, he is saying, no, he is going to object to his own resolution. I wish he would reconsider.

Again, using the debt ceiling as leverage, using the debt ceiling as a threat, using the debt ceiling as a way to achieve a different agenda is dangerous. It is playing with fire. Yet, with the opportunity to take that off the table, reassure the markets, the minority leader blinked. I do not know why. It is hard to figure out the strategy that he is employing. But we would hope on this side of the aisle--and I think I speak for all of us--that he would reconsider and, perhaps, early next week let us vote on his own resolution.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I would like to thank my great colleague from Pennsylvania. I enjoyed sharing a table last night with him and his beautiful, charming, intelligent wife, whom he would be the first to admit he is lucky to have married, and their four great girls. I also thank him for his excellent on-target remarks. We have a great chairman of the JEC, and every time he comes to the floor it shows.

Senator Olympia Snowe, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, Congressman Mike Simpson of Idaho, David Brooks, Congresswoman Bono Mack, Congressman Walter Jones, and the National Review, we are here to say that passing the Senate's middle-class tax cut is the right thing to do, but you don't need to take our word for it. Two thirds of the American public agrees with us, but you don't need to take their word for it either. Just listen to the voices within Speaker Boehner's own party.

It is clear that Speaker Boehner needed cover from his right flank before he could agree to any deal on taxes with the President. The Speaker didn't have it before, but he sure has it now. When the Wall Street Journal editorial page says that decoupling would not go against conservatives' antitax principles, that gives a whole lot of cover to the Speaker. When Grover Norquist refuses to declare whether decoupling would violate his group's pledge, that, too, gives a whole lot of cover to the Speaker. And when more and more rank-and-file Republicans come out publicly every day in favor of passing the Senate bill, that, too, gives cover to the Speaker.

You really have to salute Congressman Tom Cole. He was the first one on the other side to dare speak the truth about what should be done on taxes, and he has been on TV almost every day making the case to his party in public. The day after Congressman Cole went public, he was dismissed as having a minority opinion. Well, that is not true anymore. His comments sparked a trend. In addition to those Republicans who have spoken out publicly, there are probably dozens of other Tom Coles in the House who just don't feel free to speak their mind but agree with him privately.

Just this morning, in an appearance on cable television, the junior Senator from Oklahoma, an unquestioned conservative, came out on higher tax rates on the wealthy. He said:

Personally, I know we have to raise revenue; I don't really

care which way we do it. Actually, I would rather see the

rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us

greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in

the future.

Well, if Senator Coburn does not provide conservative cover, I don't know who does.

The House Republican leadership is like generals hunkered away in a bunker who don't realize their army has already laid down their arms. The Republican leaders are in search of an exit strategy, while they have one in the form of a discharge petition that has been filed in the House. It is an out for the Speaker. With the discharge petition, the Speaker doesn't have to outright endorse the Senate bill; all he needs to do is tell his Members: Sign your conscience. If you believe in the discharge petition, sign it, and there will be no recrimination against you.

If Speaker Boehner does that, I am confident the discharge petition will get 218 signatures and then we will get 218 votes on the floor. We may not get a majority of the majority, but we will definitely get 218 votes. So we may never win over the Paul Ryans in the other Chamber, but they aren't necessary--they can vote no or they can even vote present.

I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 additional minute.

Put the bill on the floor, let rank-and-file Republicans vote their conscience, and this bill can pass.

In the New York Times today, it was reported that senior aides on the Republican side are considering just such a strategy to give them a soft landing on this tax debate--agree to the President's offer on the tax, the thinking goes, and live to fight another day on spending cuts.

We agree that a tax hike on middle-class Americans should be taken off the table. Once Republicans agree to higher rates on the wealthy, an agreement on the other sticking points of a grand bargain can quickly fall into place. So let's stop with the offers and the counteroffers that are leaked only to manufacture headlines in the press. Let's get serious and cross the biggest item of our to-do list off and get the Senate tax cut bill passed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?

Reserving the right to object, and I will object and explain my objection.

Very simply, I heard my colleague from Kentucky say if we agree on something, let's pass it. We do agree on increasing STEM visas. I am offering a proposal that does that and does it in a more fulsome way than the proposal of my friend from Texas. But what we do not do is take away other visas or add in other extraneous positions.

I would say the logic of my friend from Kentucky is impeccable, but because of constraints on the other side they could not pass a plain bill that just added STEM visas. They had to take away other visas that my colleague from Texas does not like--but many people do. They had to add in a few other provisions.

I would simply say that if my colleague from Kentucky says we should join together on something we agree with, I will bet he agrees with our proposal as well. And I will bet he agrees with it even more than the other proposal because we add two things that are not in the bill of the Senator from Texas. No. 1, we allow unused STEM visas to be used to reduce the backlog of employment green cards. There are 200,000 people waiting. It may well be that the 55,000 visas in the bill of the Senator from Texas are not going to be used up. That is what experts say. Second, we allow STEM green cards to be used by entrepreneurs, a bill that has been introduced by I believe Senator Coons, Senator Moran--bipartisan--Senator Warner as well.

I am going to object to this bill, not because it increases STEM visas and not for some larger purpose--although I do understand that if we pick off all the pieces each of us wants, we are not going to get comprehensive reform, and that is why the Hispanic Caucus opposes the bill of the Senator from Texas but supports our bill. I understand that. But if we just want to do STEM and do it in the best way possible without other provisions, because that is what we agree on, I would urge my friend from Kentucky, and those

Members on the other side, to support our bill.

So I object to the Cornyn bill, and I will be offering a bill on the same subject that is purer, cleaner, and more full on STEM visas than the proposal that was made by my good friend from Texas.

Mr. President, if I might be recognized to offer my proposal? I have let my friend from Texas respond, but I have the--

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3553, the BRAINS Act, and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I will be brief because I don't want to take away from my colleagues' time. What this bill does is provide more STEM visas than the previous bill. It provides an entrepreneurship visa which the other bill does not. It does not take away existing visas, which the Senator from Texas doesn't like, but many other people find popular, good, and necessary. The unemployment rate for those on the diversity visas coming in is much lower than that of the national average.

If we want to pass a pure STEM bill without extraneous provisions added by people who are anti-immigration because they don't want to see any net increase in immigration, I urge the support of our bill.

Madam President, I would first like to take this time to thank my colleagues Senator Menendez and Senator Kirk for putting forth a comprehensive plan to arm the administration with the tools they need to put a stop to Iran's rogue nuclear program and for working to put together the final text of this amendment.

Look, time's a-wasting, so we need to ratchet up the sanctions now.

And rest assured--this is a powerful package that will paralyze the Iranian economy.

I believe that when it comes to Iran, we should never take the military option off the table. But I have long argued that economic sanctions are the preferred and probably most effective way to choke Iran's nuclear ambitions.

It should come as no surprise that today the head of International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, suggested that his inspectors in Iran are coming under increased duress amid fears that the Iranian regime might be aspiring to make atomic arms. And according to published reports, Iran could have at least one workable nuclear weapon by next year and another maybe 6 months after that. This cannot be allowed!

Additionally, the IAEA has reported that Iran possesses a highly organized program dedicated to acquiring the skills necessary to produce and test a nuclear bomb.

Earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iran's leaders seem prepared to attack U.S. interests overseas.

Just last year we saw U.S. authorities successfully thwart an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in this very city.

So by giving the administration the capability to tighten their crippling sanctions on Iran should they continue with their nuclear weapons program, the Senate is continuing to address the very real threat Iran poses to the United States and our allies, particularly Israel.

And make no mistake--after Hamas initiated their bloody rocket attacks against innocent civilians in Israel last month, who did they thank afterwards? They actually thanked Iran for their support in helping make ``Israel scream with pain.'' Iran sends rockets to terrorist groups to kill innocent civilians. That is just one out of many reasons why the international community just cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapons capability.

This bill will do several important things to strangle Iran's ability to continue with its illegal nuclear program.

First, it designates Iran's energy, port, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors as ``entities of proliferation concern'' due to the role they play in supporting Iran's proliferation activities.

Secondly, it blocks and prohibits all transactions in property in the United States by any person who is part of Iran's energy, port, and shipping sectors.

Additionally, it sanctions the sale, supply, and transfer of certain materials and precious metals to Iran.

And importantly, this bill sanctions foreign financial institutions for knowingly conducting transactions on behalf of any sanctioned Iranian person.

Mr. President, I believe my colleagues Senator Menendez and Senator Kirk have done an excellent job ensuring that the administration has the tools they need to put a stop to Iran's rogue nuclear program.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Reserving the right to object, would this allow a vote, an up-or-down vote on the Coburn amendment? Would this allow an up-or- down vote on the Coburn amendment?

I object.

Mr. President, I want to set the record straight. This is a provision in the law that I worked on in fact with the Senator from Oklahoma, and it says something very simple: If you are adjudicated mentally infirm, you are on the same list that prevents you from buying a gun as if you are a felon.

In my judgment--I love our veterans, I vote for them all the time. They defend us. But if you are mentally ill, whether you are a veteran or not--just as if you are a felon. If you are a veteran or not and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.

And no amendment, my friend, is absolute. The first amendment is not absolute. You are against antipornography laws. The third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth amendments. And as much as I believe in the second amendment and the right to bear arms and was a supporter of the Heller decision, neither is the second amendment.

I continue my objections to the provision.

Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague from Arizona I very much appreciate his words and I appreciate the respect he has shown for how I feel about this particular issue. But I would like to say another thing here. We are in a little bit of ``Alice in Wonderland.'' The number of times I have risen to my feet in this body to object because I did not want an amendment to come forward can be counted on a single hand over the last year or two. My good colleague from Oklahoma has made himself a legislative powerhouse by regularly using that practice. In fact, my guess is--more than my guess, the reason his amendment was included on the list of five--there are hundreds of amendments pending--is because he told people just what he would do: He would object to every other amendment unless his amendment was included.

Let me say here that if this process is going to change, it is not going to start changing in one of the rare moments when the Senator from New York or some of my colleagues here use a process that has been regularly used by the other side to achieve their goals or thwart other people's goals. We are not going to start at this moment changing things when an amendment of great importance to many of us on this side is at risk. I find it unfair and in fact I find it a little bit turning the world--not the world, but the facts of how this body works--inside out. Because it is well known that my good friend from Oklahoma and others have used the very rule I have used tonight over and over again. That in fact, I would say to both my colleagues from Michigan and from Arizona, is one of the reasons we are so frustrated with the present state of the rules.