Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 82.

I believe this has been basically agreed to by both sides. I do not think we will require a rollcall vote. I believe we can go by voice vote. I thank my cosponsors. We have had several Senators working on this: Senator Coons, Senator Carper, Senator Hoeven--I appreciate his great leadership--Senator Moran, who relented earlier and said he would not object to this, and also Senator Blunt. He has done a fantastic job of moving this through.

This is about the Food Safety Inspection Service. Basically this has a very direct impact on the private sector. When these Food Safety Inspection Service employees are furloughed, that means basically the processing plant is furloughed. They have to close for the day because they have to have a food safety inspector there when they are producing.

I think it is agreeable, and I ask unanimous consent, that we do it by voice vote. I thank all of my cosponsors.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I thank my Senate colleague from California for her remarks and also want to finish one point she was making there at the end. But before I do, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final 20 minutes prior to the vote be equally divided and controlled between Senators Levin and Inhofe.

I want to thank Senator Boxer for her comments on balancing the budget. One of the things we need to understand is that we can do this. It was not that long ago when President Clinton was elected and he focused on balancing the budget. He made it a priority of his administration. He made it a Democratic priority for the Democratic Party. They passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1993. It passed without one Republican vote in this Chamber and without one Republican vote in the House Chamber. But nonetheless it did pass. It probably caused some people some elections a couple years later, but nonetheless it was the right thing to do. It got us on the course to fiscal stability. It took 4 years, but we did balance the budget.

But there is one thing we also need to mention as we talk about that. One advantage Bill Clinton had that we have not had in the last few years is a robust, vibrant, and growing economy. He had the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. That did not happen by accident. That took a lot of work. It took a lot of bipartisan effort here in the U.S. Senate, there in the U.S. House of Representatives, and down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It had Governors working together. It had all of us working together to try to make sure we got the economy back on track because if the economy is growing, the revenues improve, and also your safety net programs are not hit nearly as hard.

So one of the things we need to focus on as a Congress--certainly as a Senate--is we need to focus on growing the U.S. economy. That brings me to my discussion today about sequestration.

When we look at the analysis on what sequestration could do to the U.S. economy, there could be 750,000 jobs lost in this economy. That is a .6 percent shrinkage of the economy by the end of this year. We are not talking about somewhere way down the road, out in the outyears. We are talking about at the end of this year it will have a negative impact on the U.S. economy. That is going to continue to hurt our debt and deficit problem. We need to do all we can to avoid this and to grow the U.S. economy. We need a growing U.S. economy. There should not be government policies that are shrinking the economy. We should be growing the economy.

I wish to say, if you look at the numbers for government employees-- and I think a lot of the news media has focused on government employees. There has been a lot of discussion in the press conferences and there is all the blame game that has been going on, and I want to talk about that in a few moments. But if you look at the numbers in the public sector--the Federal employees who will either be laid off or furloughed or for whatever reason will not be able to function--those are big numbers. But that only tells part of the story. In fact, that only tells a small part of the story because this sequester is going to harm the private sector much more than it harms the public sector.

This is something we should understand, that the American people should understand. I would hope the American people would insist we work together to get something done here in the next few days if possible, certainly in the next few weeks to avoid this sequester.

In my State of Arkansas, there are 91 poultry and meat processing facilities that will have to close their doors at least at some point because they do not have meat inspectors and food inspectors on site. That is 91 facilities. That is a lot of employees. We have employees at 52 Arkansas FSA offices. These are Department of Ag offices that are out around the counties to help people in the farming industry, to give them some government resources, advice, et cetera. Fifty-two of those offices are not going to close their doors, but they are going to have to furlough their employees. There is no doubt they will be at partial strength instead of full strength at a very critical time for farmers all over the State of Arkansas.

Also, we have an FDA facility there, the National Center for Toxicological Research, and it is going to be cut by an estimated $3 million. Well, that facility is a nice little economic engine for that part of the State. That means when they cut it, it is going to have a negative ripple effect, an adverse ripple effect in that part of our State's economy.

I know in this Chamber and in this town there is a lot of discussion about making the government small and how we should cut the government and how the government should be lean and all that. Do you know what. A lot of that I do not disagree with. But I do think it is important for all of us, as responsible policymakers, to understand the reality that whether we like it or not--and many of us have philosophical disagreements on this; and I am not trying to get into that, but whether we like it or not, our government is very intertwined in the U.S. economy, our government is a critical part of the U.S. economy.

So you take something like the food industry--and I am chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture--if you take something as basic as agriculture--something that may not be very sexy, that does not get a lot of headlines, that people do not think a lot about because we take it for granted in this country that we are going to have a good, healthy, robust food supply, but that does not have to be the case. It certainly is not the case in most countries around the world. We are very spoiled. We are very fortunate in this country to have that. But the agricultural sector cannot function without the government.

Again, we have a safe food supply. We need inspectors out there to make sure that meat and other foods that are being processed get that USDA seal of approval--grade A, whatever it is. That means something. If we cannot know our food is safe, then we have diminished what it means to live in this country. We do not want to get into that. Let's avoid that. This is avoidable.

I know a lot of Arkansans, when I talk to them, say: Can't you all do something? Can't you work together? The answer is yes, we can work together. It is just a matter of political will. We have to make up our minds that is what we are going to do, that we are going to work together.

In 2011, we passed the Budget Control Act. Here again, I think the news media has not covered this a lot, has not explained this very well to most Americans. But one of the things the Budget Control Act of 2011 did, among other things, is it set spending caps for the Federal Government. So as back in the 1980s, when people worried about $180 billion deficits--now we have much larger deficits than that, but back then in the 1980s, we put on the Gramm-Rudman spending caps and things such as that--Gramm-Rudman-Hollings--and there were other efforts over the years.

Well, that is what we have done with the Budget Control Act. We have spending caps for the next 10 years--now it is for the next 9 years when it comes to Federal spending. I think people do not always appreciate that because what they hear out of Washington--instead of people explaining what is going on and trying to help the American people understand what they get from Washington--is blame, blame, blame. I cannot count the number of press conferences we have had where one side has come out to blame the other side. I know some of the House Members just came out and blamed the Senate. Democrats are blaming Republicans. Republicans are blaming the President. The President is blaming the Congress. It goes on and on and on. It never stops. It is a dead-end street.

The truth is we voted for sequester. I do not care who came up with the idea, we voted for it. As we have talked about many times on this floor, the reason we put sequester in in the first place was because it was such a bad idea; it will be so hard to do; it does not make a lot of sense. But, nonetheless, it was to try to force our folks to get to a budget deal. It did not happen. But I think the important thing is, all Americans need to know everybody in Washington owns this. You can blame all you want. You can have as many

press conferences as you want, but everybody in Washington owns this. We need to own up to our responsibility as Congressmen and Senators and as the President and do what we can to not hurt this country.

Let me talk for a few more moments because I see one of my colleagues has arrived here. Let me say the sequestration, again, was an idea that was put together because they wanted it to be so painful that we would never get here. These are arbitrary cuts. You do not take into account the efficiency of programs, the effectiveness of programs. You do not take into account the merits of programs. You just cut across the board.

I think we probably will do some more cuts. We probably should do some more cuts. I think if you look at the Simpson-Bowles blueprint-- that proposal a lot of us have talked about over the last couple years--they would probably look at that and look at the numbers and say we still need to do some cutting. But we also need some revenue. We still need to do that. But our cuts should be smart and they should be deliberate and they should increase the bang that the taxpayer gets for their buck. That is not what sequestration does. It does not achieve any of those goals.

One thing about the Department of Agriculture--here again, people need to understand this; we talk about this here in our committee rooms and whatnot, but I think a lot of times the message does not get out-- agriculture funding has already been cut by 15 percent. There has already been a 15-percent cut to agriculture, starting in 2010 to today: 15 percent. I think it is unwise for us to cut an industry which is one of the core strengths of the U.S. economy.

If we look at the U.S. economy, there are a lot of things we do well. But there is no doubt at all we do agriculture better than anyone else in the world. There is not even a close second place. You innovate when it comes to agriculture. This is where you maximize crops. The United States of America is the gold standard for agricultural productivity and new technology and innovation and all these great things to make this country the breadbasket that it is. So why in the world are we going to cut, cut, cut agriculture? It does not make any sense.

Of course, rural America is struggling disproportionately. With the recession and all that has hit rural America, it is tough out there. Let me tell you, I come from a very rural State. It is tough. These cuts are going to harm rural America much more than they will harm urban America and suburban America. It is a fact of life. Again, that is another reason why we need to avoid this.

So in closing--I know I have one of my colleagues here who wishes to speak--let me get back to the meat inspectors. The Department of Agriculture says they may have to be furloughed for up to 15 days. That means you are going to have to temporarily close--maybe for a day at a time--6,000 processing plants nationwide. There are over 90 of those in Arkansas. Just in my State, that is going to have an impact on not those few government jobs, it is going to have an impact on 40,000 jobs in the private sector--40,000 jobs in the private sector--because of this.

It also is going to disrupt the efficiencies we have in the protein markets in this country. What that means is, prices are going to go up, people are going to pay more for their meat products at the grocery store and at the restaurant. This is not going to be a win for anybody. And I think you are going to see about $400 million in industry wages that could be lost as a result. That is not going to help the U.S. economy.

Then you expand what the U.S. Department of Agriculture does beyond row crop and livestock-type agriculture. They do a lot in the area of clean water, fire and rescue vehicles in rural communities. They do community building in rural America--things such as hospitals, school construction. They do rental assistance programs, and a lot of these are for the poorest of the poor out there around our country. Again, it is going to disproportionately hurt these people who can least afford it.

I mentioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but also at the FDA, it seems to me almost every one of their employees around the country could be subject to these furloughs and these cuts and will be adversely affected.

Do we want to interrupt the gold standard we have with food and drugs in this country through the FDA? I would say no.

I think it is time for us to come together, to work together, to find a solution. I think one of the bits of good news we see in Washington is there is nothing wrong here that we cannot fix with some political will. I think that is what this is all about. It is a little bit of a test of wills right now, but I think there is no doubt we can fix this with some political will.

Mr. President, with that, I will yield the floor.

I see my colleague from Vermont is in the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, Hurricane Sandy was the most devastating storm to hit the northeast United States in recorded history. Rebuilding after the storm will be a formidable challenge and this aid bill will go a long way towards meeting that challenge.

When Hurricane Sandy struck the East Coast, it flooded electrical substations and knocked down trees onto power lines, shutting off power for 8.2 million customers, and causing billions of dollars in damage. Over 300,000 homes in New York City and 72,000 homes and businesses in New Jersey were damaged or destroyed. Four New York City hospitals had to shut their doors.

The storm sent floodwater gushing into New York's five boroughs, flooding tunnels and the subway system and making the equipment inoperable. In many hard-hit areas wireless networks suffered widespread outages primarily due to lack of power.

When smart technologies are in place, power outages can be avoided and lives, homes and businesses are protected. As the massive rebuilding effort gets under way, decision makers should rebuild the smart way by ensuring that reconstruction funds maximize the deployment of technologies to improve the resilience of the electric grid, mitigate future power outages and ensure continued operation of facilities critical to public health, safety and welfare. Resilient and reliable power is critical for first responders, communications, health care, transportation, financial systems, homeland security, water and waste-water treatment, emergency food and shelter, and other vital services.

Examples of relevant technologies include smart grid technologies to isolate problems and repair them remotely, such as smart meters, high- tech sensors, grid monitoring and control systems, and remote reconfiguration and redundancy systems;

microgrids, energy storage, distributed and backup generation to power critical facilities and operations; wiring, cabling, submersible and other distribution components and enclosures to prevent outages; and electronic controlled re-closers and similar technologies for power restoration.

The funding provided by the Hurricane Sandy disaster relief appropriations bill should enable these States to wisely make cost- effective investments in these technologies for their long-term infrastructure resiliency. Rebuilding these essential infrastructure systems with technology that is equipped to deal with extreme weather should make recovery from any future storm faster, cheaper, and better.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Levin and Senator Alexander for their kind comments about me. The Senator from Tennessee and I came to the U.S. Senate at the same time. That was 10 years ago.

One of the things I think everyone would agree with is we have seen over the last 10 years a waning of effectiveness in the Senate. A large part of that is the fact that this floor is not used as it should be. This floor has been used to block and obstruct. Both parties are guilty of that. This floor should be the marketplace of ideas. It should be where we come together and we work to resolve our differences. Our differences may be partisan, they may be regional, they may be philosophical, they may be generational, whatever, but our Founding Fathers set up our system of government where there would be one place where difficult, complex, thorny, even sometimes politically treacherous issues can be resolved, and that is on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

When we, again Democrats and Republicans, abuse the rules around here and we stymie the Senate from acting, we get gridlock, and gridlock is not good for the country. I firmly believe one of the reasons the American public is so disgusted with Congress right now is because of the things that are happening and not happening on this floor.

When we think about our system of government and when our Founding Fathers set it up, of course we have the three branches, but as a practical matter, the floor, right here, is the only place in our government where the American people--the people we represent--can actually see their law being made. Americans don't see law being made at the White House. They go out there and they huddle up in their conference rooms and they come out to the Rose Garden and they make the announcement. We never see the process. We don't see the process in the U.S. Supreme Court or in the courts of appeals. What happens there is the lawyers and the parties come in and make their cases and then the Justices and judges go back and conference and they talk about it back in their chambers, and they come out with their decision, and that is what we have. We don't always know what the deliberations are. We don't know all the considerations. The same thing in the U.S. House of Representatives, with all due respect to our other Chamber down the hall. Because of the way their rules operate, because of the Rules Committee and the way it is structured and their history and, quite frankly, their DNA, it is a majoritarian body. But not the U.S. Senate. In the Senate we allow Senators to amend and debate and to vote. That has been one of the problems here in the last 10 years. The Senator from Tennessee--and I see the Senator from Texas on the floor--we all came in together. This Senate has lost a lot of ability to do that.

I am firmly convinced we have sufficient verbiage in rule XXII of the Senate Rules to require a talking filibuster. I think that is critically important. It is not a new interpretation, but it is utilizing the existing interpretations, the longstanding history of the Senate, based on parliamentary decisions, based on decades of things that

have happened here on the floor, where we have the authority already in rule XXII. But we have asked our two leaders to clarify and state and notify all of us how we are going to handle issues during this Congress. The way we are going to handle it when it comes to the talking filibuster is we are going to require Senators to be here to object. No more phone-in filibusters. We are going to require Senators to come down and state their objections, to come down and actually speak. If they have a problem with moving forward, they need to come and speak about it. If they want to start a filibuster, they should be here to speak on the floor. What is going to happen is the majority of Senators who want to see legislation get done may have to do a little work and be here late nights, but that is part of it. That is what we signed up for. It is like the Senator from Tennessee said a few moments ago. We all worked very hard to get here, and we came here to work for the country. If we are ever going to have a chance of resolving the big and difficult issues that face our Nation--issues such as our debt and deficit; issues such as the fiscal cliff; a whole set of issues including tax reform, entitlement reform--we can bet our last dollar those things are going to happen in the Senate. That is where things get done.

The fiscal cliff, with all due respect to the House, didn't happen in the House, it happened in the Senate. The minority leader and the Vice President worked it out. That is the way things have always gotten done, for the most part, in American history, and that is the way we need to allow things to get done in this Congress, because we have too many big issues to block everything that is coming through on the Senate floor.

Again, I wish to thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain for leading this effort. They are great leaders. I thank Senator Kyl, Senator Barrasso, Senator Alexander. Participating in those meetings with my Republican colleagues was a great experience, to listen to them, listen to their concerns. I think it was an education for all the Democrats to have that quality time where we did listen and then they listened to us. I think that was very important. We need to do more of that around here. We will get a lot more done if we do.

Also, our Democratic colleagues, of course led by Senator Levin, Senator Schumer, and Senator Cardin, everybody contributed, and I think it is something we should be proud of and it is also a great victory for bipartisanship. It is a great victory for bipartisanship. I think that is what the American people are screaming out for: for us to work together to get things done, and this is a good example of that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until 7:15 p.m. today, and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the title amendment with respect to H.R. 8, which is at the desk, be agreed to.

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 Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6586, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Nelson- Hutchison substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6060 and the Senate proceed to its consideration and consideration of Calendar No. 269, S. 302 en bloc.

Mr. President, 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 with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 628, submitted earlier today by Senators Landrieu and Blunt.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senate proceed to a voice vote on adoption of the resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 629, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, January 1, 2013; that following the prayer and the 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 proceed to a period of morning business until 3:30 p.m. for debate only, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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, Hurricane Sandy had a devastating effect on the electric and transportation infrastructure in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. When Hurricane Sandy struck the east coast, it flooded electrical substations and knocked down trees onto power lines, shutting off power for 8.2 million customers, and causing billions of dollars in damage.

The storm sent floodwater gushing into New York's five boroughs, flooding tunnels and the subway system and making the equipment inoperable. In many hard-hit areas wireless networks suffered widespread outages primarily due to lack of power.

We have seen this scenario play out before. Just this past summer, a derecho thunderstorm knocked out power for more than 1 million residents near Washington for several days.

Do such storms have to result in such widespread outages and does the restoration of a power grid have to take so long? Several experts have said that America's power infrastructure could be more resilient--even when tested by a once-in-a-century storm.

The intent of section 52005 of the supplemental Appropriations bill is to encourage recipients of these disaster assistance funds to rebuild the electrical infrastructure so that it is more resilient to future storms. We can achieve a more resilient electric grid by maximizing the utilization of technologies that can mitigate future power outages and by ensuring the continued operation of facilities critical to first responders, communications, health care, transportation, financial systems, homeland security, emergency food and shelter, government offices, as well as other vital services such as hospitals and wastewater treatment systems.

Rebuilding these essential infrastructure systems with technology that is equipped to deal with extreme weather will better enable the electric grid to withstand potential damage and continue to deliver these vital services and maintain electric power to facilities critical to public health, safety and welfare.

There are numerous proven technologies that are ready to be deployed to enhance our electric infrastructure resiliency including smart grid technologies to isolate problems and repair them remotely, such as smart meters, high-tech sensors, grid monitoring and control systems, and remote reconfiguration and redundancy systems; microgrids, energy storage, distributed and back-up generation to power critical facilities and operations; wiring, cabling, submersible and other distribution components and enclosures to prevent outages; and electronically controlled re-closers and similar technologies for power restoration.

When we look at the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, and the suffering by millions of people who could not get electricity or communicate by phone or the internet, it makes smart sense to rebuild the electric grid so that it is more resilient and better able to withstand whatever nature may next throw at it.

Mr. President, on rollcall vote 248 I voted no. It was my intention to vote aye. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

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

Mr. President, I have a couple things to say. First, I know the Senator from New York just left, Mr. Schumer. I want the people of New York to know, all the citizens of that State, how hard he worked to get this legislation passed. The entire delegation of New York and New Jersey were outstanding.

But Senator Schumer, when the storm was still raging, was on the phone calling Senators and Congressmen and calling the White House to get help for his State and the region. He deserves a lot of credit for getting us here. But truthfully, the delegations of those States pulled together and showed a lot of leadership. We appreciate that.

Also, we were so pleased Senator Mikulski was able to take the lead on this bill. It was a lot of fun for all of us to see her in action in her first real bill that she handled on the floor as chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield the floor.