Floor Statements

Madam President, I wish to follow up on the words of my distinguished colleague from Hawaii and also comment on a few points that the Senator from Wyoming Mr. Enzi made in this important debate that is happening in Washington today--actually a debate that is happening all over our country.

First, I wish to associate myself with the effort underway by Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota, Senator Pryor from Arkansas, and others on both sides of the aisle who have been working throughout the evening, the night, early morning hours-- talking, trying to find a way forward. I thank both Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for blessing that effort and trying to find a way forward because, as the Senator from Hawaii said, this is a very dangerous situation.

Despite the fact that there are Members on the other side of the Capitol in the Republican Party--not in the Democratic Party, in the Republican Party--who continue to doubt that there will be any ramifications from default, I hate to say it, but they are going to be sorry they uttered those words. This is a very serious situation.

The U.S. Treasury bond is the safest investment in the world today. Let me repeat, the safest investment in the world today. Think about it. If you had a little bit of money, would you invest it in Russia? Would you invest it in Saudi Arabia? Would you invest it in China? Where would you invest it? The Government of the United States is not perfect but, relatively speaking, in all aspects of the world what is the safest, most sure group that is likely to pay their debts? That would be the United States, and it has been that way for over 225 years.

But the Republicans in the House have decided to put that on the line because they do not like the Affordable Care Act or they put all of that on the line because they don't like the way the budget process is working. They then doubled down and said not only are we going to put the full faith and credit of the United States at risk, we are going to shut down the government while we do that until we get our way on a specific piece of legislation.

I know there are principles underlying the Affordable Care Act that are worth debating how big the size of government should be, how much the Federal Government should spend, how much local government should spend, what level of revenues should be required to pay for it and who should put up those revenues, individuals or businesses. Those are important issues to decide. We try to make those decisions every day. But a group of 80 Republicans--3 of whom are in my own State, I am sorry to say, 3 Representatives--signed a letter saying: If we don't get exactly what we want on the Affordable Care Act--which, by the way, passed the Congress, was upheld by the Supreme Court, and is being implemented in a majority of States--we are going to put the full faith and credit of the United States at risk. Literally, the ramifications are too massive to describe.

We have only a few days. I wouldn't even say we have a few days. We are already feeling the results of this hostage-taking by a few Republicans in the House of Representatives. I am praying and hoping that my colleagues in the Senate will live up to the great hope of the Senate, which was at times such as these to walk back from the ledge, reason together and find a way forward.

I see my good friend from Tennessee. I think if there is anyone who could help us do that, he would be one who could, along with Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others who have been mayors, who have been elected officials for a long time, who understand how you can get wound up and that it is important to calmly wind down and figure this out.

I will yield for a minute to the Senator if he has a question. But I do want to say, because my argument is not with him, that when Senators come to the floor to say that Democrats have not wanted to go along with the regular process, I want to say again as an appropriator, because I came to the floor yesterday, I want to say the first step in an appropriations process is to get a budget.

The Democrats, amazingly, were able to get a budget. We have not for 4 years in the Senate. So we got a budget. Republicans got a budget. These are two completely different approaches to how the government should be funded, what should be spent, how much money should be raised--two different approaches. But you know what. It is two different parties. We have a Democrat Party controlling here, the Republican Party controlling there. That is the first step, two budgets. They are very different. We need to go to conference on that budget.

But the Democrats here have asked our Republican colleagues who sit right across the aisle, please let us go to the Budget Committee, 21 times. I have put this in the Record. We started on April 23, Senator Reid requested unanimous consent; Senator Toomey from Pennsylvania objected. I am not going to read them all. Let's fast forward to 5/14, May 14. Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference. Senator McConnell blocked it. Then go into June, June 4. Senator Murray asked unanimous consent. Senator Rubio blocked it. Then go to July 17, Senator Murray asked again, Senator Mike Lee blocked it.

They blocked going to budget conference because the tea partiers in this party, the small group of Republicans, said we will go to conference, but you cannot talk about raising any revenues in the budget conference. We will go to a budget conference to try to solve the budget problems of the United States, but you Democrats cannot talk about raising revenues. That is because the only thing we want to talk about is cutting--cutting, cutting. That is all. They will cut anything: Head Start, education, EPA--don't like the EPA very much myself, but that is all they want to do is cut.

We said you cannot solve a problem with just one side of that equation. We don't know where the revenues might need to come from, but there has to be a balance and we have to start paying down our long- term debt.

That is one thing I wish to say again. I don't want anyone in this government or the world or my State or the Nation to think Democrats are not concerned about the debt. We are concerned about the debt. We do not like the debt being this high. We want to try to find ways and we have reduced--with our Republican colleagues--spending trillions of dollars.

The Senator from Tennessee, to his credit--because I have not been in those negotiations. I was not part of the group of 8, but I supported a lot of what they have done. I was not on Simpson-Bowles, but I supported a lot of that. To his credit, he has tried to come up with a grand bargain to get our country to pay down our long-term debt but in a smart way that strengthens our economy and does not pull out the rug from underneath it.

But because the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz--through the Chair, Senator Cruz from Texas, because Senator Lee from Utah, said: No, we cannot go to budget unless you Democrats agree before you ever get to the negotiating table that we cannot raise any revenue--that was what the fight was about, so we never went to conference.

When you don't go to the budget conference, then you cannot start negotiating the individual bills. My responsibility is to negotiate Homeland. I want to say I am very proud of my colleague Senator Coats. He and I were given a number by our leadership and we have completely put our bill together with virtually no disagreement on a lower number than we had last year. We had to cut a lot of things out. I might say, we were asked by some Republican leaders to add a $700 million project that I had to absorb into my budget because of something the Republicans asked for--and the President supported, I want to be honest. I was not a big fan of it, but the President and the Republicans wanted it, so I had to compromise and put it in my bill without any additional money and take some things out to make room for it. That is what we do around here--that is what we used to do around here. We are not doing it much right now.

For anyone to come to the floor to say to Democrats you are not the ones who want to go to regular order--we will go to budget. Patty Murray, the Senator from Washington, could not be working any harder. She is one of the most respected Members in this whole

body, and I am not just saying that. She is very humble. She is very smart. She is very much willing to negotiate. The Senator from Maryland Ms. Mikulski is probably one of the most popular Senators who has ever served in the Senate. Literally everyone likes her. She is not difficult to work with.

She is tough. She is not difficult to work with. So we have two extraordinary people trying to work through this. Yet we are not so much being blocked by our side on the Senate--even though they have blocked 21 times--they are being run by a group of extreme, radical party members on their side who have now gotten the Republican Party in complete disarray. That is not good for them. It is not good for the Democrats. It is definitely not good for the country. Now we have to figure out our way forward.

I know I have run into my 10 minutes. I don't know if the Senator wants to speak or if he wants me to yield for a question. I am happy to wrap this up and I will in a minute.

But to recap, I am willing to be part of the common ground to find a solution, but I will not allow--as long as I am on this floor today and I will be here for a couple of hours--for anyone to suggest that Democrats have been holding up the process, we have been trying to get to a budget conference for 6 months. We have been trying to negotiate appropriations bills. But we will not be held hostage, nor the Federal employees or the businesses or nonprofits or our States and mayors and cities because Republicans cannot even go to the negotiation until they get 100 percent of their way or until the government is shutdown, it cannot open, or until we default on our debt.

We cannot negotiate under those terms. We can negotiate on terms where the hostages are freed and we sit down like grownups and work this out. I am hoping we can do that.

Madam President, I would like to respond for 5 minutes, and then I will have to take the Chair and relieve the Presiding Officer.

Let me again say how much I respect the Senator from Tennessee. No one on his side of the aisle--except perhaps the good Senator from Alabama--has spent more time on budget issues because that is actually the job of the Senator from Alabama.

The Senator from Tennessee has taken it upon himself to be a leader. I agree with him that we are on right page, the right chapter, and in the right book to talk about some fiscal issues.

I don't agree that the strategy to get us here was the right strategy, but we are here. There is no sense in pointing fingers. I do agree that the Senate needs to try to find our way forward because--the Senator from Tennessee is correct--where we are now, there are no winners and losers. It is just about doing what is right for the American people. I want to do that for the State of Louisiana, and he wants to do that for the State of Tennessee. We have lots of people who are counting on us to try to lower our temperatures and find a way forward.

Secondly, I also agree with him that whatever we can come up with here has to be broadly supported on both sides--or at least core- supported on both sides--because it is going to have to be something we can bring to the House and say, look, this is the best we can do and we cannot go over this cliff.

Thirdly, I want to make a point. On this Budget Control Act, that is law. Let me say the Affordable Care Act, in lawyers' terms--and I am not one--would say it is not settled law. It is law that has passed and been upheld by the Supreme Court, but there have not been enough court tests. I will take the Senator's word for it, but it is settled as far as we are concerned because it passed.

The Budget Control Act is as well. But this is the point I would like to make to my good friend from Tennessee: The House is willing to take the sequester, which is the lowest number, but what they do--which is very disingenuous and what the Democrats will not be for--is basically take the lower number overall, but keeping Defense at a very high number, and therefore cutting the heck out of everybody else.

There is no agriculture money, no education money, no health care money, no nothing, but they want to keep Defense whole. That is what the House is trying to do. I realize that is not what my colleagues on the Republican side here want to do. As the Senator from Tennessee knows, that is our problem. It is not about just taking the lower number, but how that number is going to be allocated across appropriations. That is how the Defense appropriations bill is put together. It absorbs all the money and leaves all the other budgets starving.

I know Defense is important. I am a Democrat who supported a strong defense. I have stood against irresponsible cuts to the Defense budget. But to take a lower number in the whole budget and then say, OK, we will take the lower number, but we are going to give it all to Defense, and then we can't fund anything in health, education, and social services, which is so important--that is not right either.

One more point is this: The Senator from Tennessee has been very brave. There are not that many brave people around here. He has been one of the brave ones around here who said we may need to raise a few revenues around here; we can't solve the whole problem by cuts alone. In the last big deal we did, we were able to figure out how to raise some revenues and also make some cuts so we could have a good and steady way to balance our budget and not pull the rug out from underneath this very promising economy.

I have 5-percent unemployment in Louisiana. I am not talking as a State that doesn't have jobs. Our problem is we have so many jobs, we need people to fill them. It breaks my heart we are ready to pull the plug on that, and we are close. I know how much my people are counting on us to get this done.

I want to thank the Senator, but I hope he will also stand up to some of the other voices over there who say we can solve this problem by cutting, cutting, cutting, and we can cut mandatory problems and cut entitlements, that is all we have to worry about, and I think he knows that is not correct.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to add my voice to the voices that have spoken since 11:00 our time about the importance of opening this government and sending a strong signal that the Congress will not default on its debt; that we will pay our bills and we will honor the commitments we have made not only to bondholders outside of our country but to our own constituents who hold Treasury bonds in their pension funds and their 401(k)s, who use it to balance their investments in their businesses because they know they can count on those notes being paid. Until just a few days ago it seemed as if that would happen.

Recently, in the last 48 hours, there is a real question as to whether a small group of Republicans in the House understands how high this cliff is and how close we are to it. This problem is completely manufactured by a group of people elected to office to do this exact thing--shut the government down at any expense and, as the Senator from Virginia just said, burn the whole house down with the children inside. They came here with that express purpose. They are wrong, and they are pushing this country to a terrible place.

Leader Reid has explained it. Senator Schumer from New York has explained it. Mark Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, who is literally one of the finest Governors we have had in the last 50 years in America--and I say that respectfully and honestly; we all know what a great Governor he was--he is now joined by another great Governor from Virginia, Governor Kaine--these men are Senators, but they understand our Governors now are at risk, every Governor, Republican and Democrat, and all the leaders of the State governments and the thousands of cities and villages.

Yesterday we received a letter signed by the Governors Association, Democrat and Republican Governors, saying open the government. Do not let the government default. Why? Because in our system of government, which is the best in the world--it is not perfect, but it is the best in the world ever created by men and women. We are frail human beings. We make a lot of mistakes. We made so many mistakes in the creation

of our country and we still continue to do it, but we are trying to build a model of democracy, the best the Earth has ever known.

There is a group of people in the House who decided that for some reason they do not like the democracy. I do not know what they want to go back to, but it has taken us 230-plus years to get here. I don't think anybody wants to go back to a place where the world had no democracy.

There were elections. People won those elections. President Obama won his election. He did not carry my State, but he won his election fair and square. He campaigned on providing middle-class families for the first time in America a way to purchase health insurance--not a single- payer system, not the government system--to purchase health insurance so they would not be one accident away from financial ruin. ``Shame on President Obama. Shame on him for suggesting something so radical that moms and dads could go to sleep at night knowing that if an accident happened the next day they would not have to take bankruptcy or choose between a child disfigured or a child who needed to go to college. Shame on President Obama. How dare he suggest such a thing.''

If they do not like the bill, they can change the bill. We did not wake up one morning and declare this the law. The people of the United States declared this through us as their Representatives. If they do not like it, they can unelect us. Believe me, they will have a great chance because I am up for reelection right now. They will be able to do that. But that is the way you do it. You do not threaten to shut down the government.

I am going to run for reelection. I am standing in this election as a supporter of the Affordable Care Act--not because it is a perfect law but because it is much better for all the people I represent than what we had before--the wealthiest people, the middle-class people, and the poor people.

We argued and fought in public, in meetings for 40 years on how to do this. This was not a last-minute, behind-the-scenes deal that nobody read. Have they lost their minds? We debated this for 40 years through every kind of President you can think of, conservative, liberal, different kinds of Congresses.

I know we have devoted 10 minutes, and I know other people want to speak, but I will take just a few minutes.

Contrary to popular belief and what FOX News said, people here read the bills. For 40 years we read the bills. But we did not have to read the bills; all we had to do was look at the faces of kids dying of cancer who had no way to get cured. All we had to do is talk to people who came to our office every day who said: Senator, can't you do something? My insurance is going up. I can't afford it. I want to get out of my job. I worked for GE my whole life. I have a better idea. I want to get a better job, but I can't leave because my wife has cancer.

I don't need to read a bill. I listen to my constituents. That is what this is about. Then when they decide they are going to shut down the government because they can repeal this law--now they are deciding that did not work so well. That is not making a lot of sense to people. Now we are going to negotiate on we don't know what, but we have to get something out of this. How dare they? How dare this group of radicals, led by the Senator from Texas--how dare they take the greatest democracy on Earth hostage? Who gives them that right? Do they think they are divined by God? They are not--none of us here are.

God could run this world perfectly, but he doesn't run it. He is in Heaven. Until then we, as imperfect as we are, have to figure out His will through the democratic process. But they have decided that is not good enough.

I don't know anything on Earth that is better. Maybe they can figure it out in the next 48 hours. People have been thinking about that for 6 or 7 or 8,000 years or longer. I don't think 48 hours is going to help them.

Anyway, we are here today. What I would like to say is that I agree with everything my Senate colleagues have said. I urge our colleagues to vote to open the government, to not hold the U.S. Government and the world and all the kids in the world, all the adults in the world, all the businesses in the world hostage over their antics. In Louisiana, let me say, we have 400,000 people who need us to fix flood insurance. They are truly hurting. We have 200,000 people who live in Houma who have been waiting for a levee around their city for 25 years. Then they were told by the Corps, yes, they will build it. Then they didn't; yes, they will build it. Then they didn't. I need to get on that.

We have permits in the Gulf of Mexico, I say to Senator Boxer. I see my friend from California. I am going to turn it over to her. We have a little different view on this, Senator Boxer and I, but people in Louisiana would like to drill for oil. We would like to get our permits to do that. But because this ideological group has shut down the government, there are no permits being issued to produce the oil and gas necessary to keep our country strong. I could go on.

Let us reason together. We can find many issues to negotiate about. I am open to many negotiations, as are the Democrats, but to threaten the core of this democracy, fought for so long and hard over decades by men and women, is beyond the pale.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know the Members of the Senate are going to be retiring to caucuses to try to figure out how we are going to move forward, and I am confident, with the good work of the people in this Chamber, we will find a way.

Senator Johanns and I have been working, along with many of our colleagues, to try to come to some resolution about funding a city in the United States, the District of Columbia, that is not an agency of the Federal Government that happens to be the city that the seat of government sits in.

While I am not going to ask for consent now, I want to, through the Chair, ask Senator Johanns to express, if he could, a few views about this, as we try to work our way forward for sometime maybe later this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as we exited the Chamber to go to our Democratic caucus, I am certain my Republican colleagues and friends were talking among themselves as well, trying to find a way forward.

A reporter stopped me and said: What do you think the Senate is going to do?

I don't know the specifics, but I am most certainly hopeful and remain cautiously optimistic that the Senate will step up to the job at hand and fulfill the promise and hopes of our Founders, who created the Senate to operate at times just like these where there seems to be no way forward, to find a way forward; where the political winds have gotten so bitter and cold, for the 100 of us to find a way forward to help keep our economy whole and operating and functioning well, not just for our Nation but for the world, which is important; to help support and bolster the recovery that is underway; to set aside the bitterness and the rancor and try to find a way forward.

I am very encouraged despite the fact that the vote was very divisive--all Republicans on one side and all Democrats on the other. I am confident because I know Members of this body well and I have been here long enough to know that the many people of good will on both sides of the aisle can try to find a way forward. And I know the President of the United States is open to negotiation.

Maybe we can find resolution within the political parties, but that is not what is important. What is important is finding a resolution in the Senate of the United States for all of the people of the United States. We do not represent narrow districts with narrow ideologies. We represent States--big ones, such as California, medium-sized ones, such as Louisiana, and small ones, such as Delaware. But inside of Delaware, inside of Louisiana, and inside of California, there are people of all different political persuasions. As Senators, when we run for office we have to listen and take all of that in and then try to make the best decisions we can. It is an honor to serve in the Senate even though it is tough, it is hard, and it is very difficult at times.

I have been proud to serve here for 18 years and be among many groups that have found compromise and the middle ground, that have tried to work to understand where the other side is coming from and move our country forward. It has not always been perfect, and none of us are perfect here, but I am proud I have at least been one to say: Count on me to try to see what we can do to resolve the situation. I want to say that today for my constituents. That is what they want me to do. That is what they sent me here for 18 years ago and what I know they want me to

continue to do. I do feel strongly on their behalf that the government should open and the 21,000 of them who have been wrongly laid off by the actions of a minority--the government needs to open, and the debt of the United States most certainly needs to be honored so this economic recovery can continue.

But there are plenty of things we can negotiate. The debt of the country is too high. We do need to have some earned benefit and potential entitlement reform--not necessarily cutting benefits from people who count on them but for the government to do its part to meet people halfway. There are always efficiencies that can be created if we work together.

So on behalf of my constituents, I am very hopeful that we can find a way forward. I think Senator Reid has been providing extraordinary leadership, and hopefully we can find a way forward.

I would briefly mention that there have been some very good conversations going on about funding for the city of Washington--not a part of the Federal Government--which has not been resolved yet, but Republicans, Democrats, and the White House are working together to find a way so the District of Columbia, the city of Washington--with its own mayor and city council, its own budget, its own local funds-- does not have to be caught up in a very tough circumstance that is not of their making. They are not part of the Federal Government, and neither is New York, Chicago, New Orleans, or Baltimore. They are separate cities, and they should be treated that way. We haven't found a way yet, but we are working on it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would like to speak for about 10 minutes. I understand there may be other Senators coming to the floor. I wanted to express my concerns about a few issues that are really important to the people of Louisiana.

I understand that the meeting with the President and the Republicans in the Senate--our friends--has just concluded. I am hoping there will be some positive steps forward from that meeting so we can open this government, remove the threat of an economic collapse, and get to the bargaining table to which we have literally been trying to achieve for 6 months. We voted 21 times in the Senate to get to the negotiating table in the budget conference, which is the first starting point to agree on numbers and revenues and spending limits.

As an appropriator--I would know this as chair of the Appropriations Committee--the next step in regular order is for each individual committee to negotiate with our Republican counterparts about how we allocate the money given to us through that budget process.

None of that has been able to happen--none. It is not because Democrats have been unwilling to go to the negotiating table, but because some friends on the other side have taken hostage innocents-- Federal employees, the economy generally--and demanded things that are way beyond their ability to use their political leverage. So instead of using it correctly, they have held innocent hostages. It is very troubling, and I think it is very wrong. Hopefully, we are going to find a way forward.

Flood Insurance

I wanted to spend my time this afternoon talking about what I am hearing from the people in Louisiana, such as: Could you all get back to work because we have some serious problems that need to be solved. One of the problems--Mr. President, maybe your State is affected by this because the Presiding Officer has a coastal area, as do we--is fixing this very broken flood insurance system. In our State it is referred to as Biggert-Waters. It was named after the two Members of Congress who led this ``reform effort.''

Maxine Waters has subsequently completely disassociated herself with the legislation and said it was not the right thing to do. She has made several public statements. She has urged, as the leader in the House, with Republicans and Democrats, to get this fixed.

For the people of Louisiana, this is our No. 1 problem and challenge right now because a year and a half ago the Federal Government passed a law that was supposed to cure something. But the cure is worse than the disease. The disease was we had a flood insurance program that spent more money than it had taken in. And, yes, premiums were probably too low to sustain the program, but it was giving people at least some option and hope when they had a flood, so they could get some of the equity in their home protected and recovered.

This bill came along and was never debated on the Senate floor. It was

stuck in a conference committee report, and now it is being implemented, and it is a disaster. We have 400,000 flood insurance policies in Louisiana, Texas has 700,000, Florida has over 2 million, Pennsylvania has over 75,000, and Virginia probably has between 40,000 and 50,000. I don't have the list in front of me.

The problem is that the law that passed had stated one goal: to make the program sustainable. But it left out an equally important aspect: to make it affordable. You can sustain a program all day long, but if nobody can afford to be in it, A, how long will it sustain itself? Not long at all. And, B, we are hurting the people we are trying to help the most.

A group of us have been working for quite some time on fixing this. These new regulations went into effect on October 1. We are going on 11 or 12 days--I forget the date, but we are past October 1. These new rates have gone into effect, and some people are seeing rates quadruple--or tenfold. Some of these rates are going up from $300 a year to $3,000. In some cases we have heard $1,500 to $30,000. I am not exaggerating or making this up. This is all in the record.

We have a way to fix it. The good news I wanted to share on the floor today is that we had 24 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, come together this week and send a ``dear colleague'' letter to our leadership--to the Republican leadership and the House leadership--to say that we are very close to a compromise that will do two things: It will give us time to get the affordability study that was supposed to be done actually done. It will allow FEMA to potentially--with some oversight from Congress--set rates that would keep the program functioning but not jeopardize people's equity in their homes.

It would, of course, remove the automatic trigger provision that has been very detrimental in the law, which basically says: The rates will stay low, but the minute people put a house up for sale or sell a house, whatever grandfathered rate they had is gone. And it doesn't go up 25 percent a year, it goes up to where it should be. In some cases that is a move from $1,000 a year to $30,000 a year. It makes their house worthless, and that is what is happening to thousands of people. They have lost equity in their home. It is one of many problems this Congress has to fix. We can't fix any of them if we can't get back to work. We need the officials that have been laid off at FEMA to go back to work.

One point I want to make today is let's find a way forward to negotiate. I hope part of the negotiation could potentially be a fix to Biggert-Waters. I want to thank Senator Merkley from Oregon, Senator Menendez from New Jersey, Senator Wicker from Mississippi, and Senator Vitter from Louisiana. Senator Isakson has been giving us some good input. I want to thank the realtors and the bankers because they realized that we made a mistake and that the law we passed was not a good one. Sometimes that happens.

We have to fix it. We don't have to fix the whole of it, but we are working on some pieces that must be amended so that it accomplishes the goal of having a program and so that taxpayers do not have to pick up a big tab every year. It will allow real estate markets to function, people to be able to retain equity in their home, and to pay their fair share. It will also encourage smart growth and development.

Also--and very importantly, which is part of the problem with Biggert-Waters--the bill we are trying to fix didn't even recognize levees. I don't know if the Presiding Officer has a lot of levees in Virginia, but we have to have them in Louisiana because we are below sea level. We have been that way for 300 years. We moved there below sea level. We had to be there to create the Port of New Orleans.

Thomas Jefferson leveraged the whole Federal Treasury to buy us for 3 cents an acre, if I remember correctly--the bulk of 19 States. It was the greatest real estate purchase in the history of our country. Alaska may argue, but we think the Louisiana Territory is equally as valuable, if not more so, and our State is proud to carry that name. People understand the history of this.

Why would Thomas Jefferson leverage the whole Treasury of the United States to buy something that was not worthwhile. Of course it is worthwhile. It was worthwhile then, and it is worthwhile now.

People live there because we run the biggest port system in the world, and we need to continue to live there with all of the industries--oil and gas, and fisheries, et cetera.

This Biggert-Waters bill undermines our region's ability to function. We produce 17 percent of the GDP for the country, so this is not a small parochial issue to the Southern States: Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, et cetera--but it also affects interior states. We have seen what happened in Colorado. We have seen what happened to the east coast States, with New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, et cetera.

Let's get to the negotiating table. Let's work together, as we know we can, and let's put on the top of that agenda a potential fix for Biggert-Waters.

Again, I thank my colleagues for working so cordially together even in this difficult time.

Let me move to another subject for a minute and put into the Record, in the event that my colleagues--do I have to ask for an additional 3 minutes?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter that I received. I think all of the Members received this letter that was addressed to Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, and Representative Pelosi from the National Governors Association that came yesterday.

Governor Mary Fallin and Governor John Hickenlooper signed the letter on behalf of all the Governors, and it says:

The nation's governors urge Congress and the Administration

to quickly reopen the federal government.

The fiscal health of states is inextricably linked to the

fiscal stability of the federal government, and while state

economies have improved, a failure by our national government

to secure a solution to the current government budget issues

undermines our states' recovery and endangers the U.S.

economy.

It goes on to say:

States have thus far managed to avoid closing or suspending

most programs and services by using carry-over funds or, in

some cases, by using state spending to fill in missing

federal dollars. However, states are not in the position to

be the bank for the federal government.

As a former Governor, the Presiding Officer understands this. I was a former Treasurer. I most certainly understand that the budget of Louisiana is almost 70 percent Federal funding. So when the Federal Government cuts off that funding, it starts to affect the way States-- and the 300-plus cities in my State--operate, and it affects our private sector partners that work with us to provide State-level and community services. It affects nonprofits such as Catholic Charities, who are running some of our low-income housing, our justice programs in some of our neighborhoods and communities.

This shutdown is just bad. It is bad all around. It should not have happened. We need to get this government open and operating, which will help our States and their economic recovery plans to start focusing on fixing things. We need to fix things like Biggert-Waters and repeal that old insurance reform bill so we can find a better way forward.

I might also mention two other things quickly. What is also happening in our State today--I got news this morning--is that permitting in the Gulf of Mexico for offshore oil and gas drilling is now shut down. Right at the time when America is about to overtake Russia as the largest domestic producer of gas and oil, right when we are about to take first place, the Republican tea party has shut the government down and shut down permitting in the gulf.

Ever since the Deepwater Horizon, we have been fighting to get that back up and going. Now we find it has been shut down again. The people I represent cannot take another shutdown of permitting.

We have levees to build. We have a big problem in our river parishes, as we call them, along Lake Pontchartrain. We have Morganza to the gulf, which is an important levee project for Houma, which is one of the centers for oil and

gas production. This not only helps the people of Houma and Terrebonne Parish, but it helps the whole region and the whole country. It is sort of like a little Houston, if you will. Houma is like a little Houston. We don't have all of the corporate structures, but we have all of the know-how, the goods and services, the providers, the boats, the planes, the ships, and the helicopters. They might have the gleaming office towers in Houston, but we have a lot of the hard workers in Houma.

The levee that protects them and their homes is now basically--the plans for it are shut down along with this tea party shutdown.

National

Governors Association,

Washington, DC, October 10, 2013.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker

Boehner, and Representative Pelosi: The nation's governors

urge Congress and the Administration to quickly reopen the

federal government.

The fiscal health of states is inextricably linked to the

fiscal stability of the federal government, and while state

economies have improved, a failure by our national government

to secure a solution to the current budget issues undermines

our states' recovery and endangers the U.S. economy.

States have thus far managed to avoid closing or suspending

most programs and services by using carryover funds or, in

some cases, by using state spending to fill in for missing

federal dollars. However, states are not in a position to be

the bank for the federal government. As this impasse

continues, we call on Congress and the Administration to

commit to fully reimbursing states and territories for the

federal expenses they absorb during the shutdown. These

expenses include funding for programs, state employees who

are paid through federal funds and any other outlays that

would normally have been supported by federal funds.

As governors, our citizens expect us to work together to

balance our budgets and make government work. We will do

whatever we can to serve our citizens and deliver the core

services they need and expect during this uncertain time. In

return, we ask our federal partners to quickly find a path

forward that reimburses states for incurred federal expenses;

restores certainty in the federal budget process; creates

long-term stability; and strengthens the fiscal condition of

the nation for the benefit of all citizens.

Sincerely,

Governor Mary Fallin.

Governor John Hickenlooper.

It is time to open our government. It is time to get back to work, solve real problems, and negotiate in good faith without taking innocent hostages. There are too many innocents being harmed, whether it is children with cancer, whether it is businesspeople who have put everything on the line for their business and through no fault of their own now have no customers coming in the front door and can't pay their note--and the banks aren't going to wait until we get our act together.

I thank the Presiding Officer. I wanted to, if I could, take 1 more minute to speak on behalf of the people who don't have a Senator here; that is, the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia is technically not a part of the Federal Government. They are not an agency of the Federal Government. They are not a department of the Federal Government. The District of Columbia is the district in which the Federal Government resides. Contrary to popular belief, they raise most of their money through their own tax revenue generated--about 75 percent local. Twenty-five percent of the budget of the District of Columbia--which has about 750,000 people, which is a pretty big city as cities go--comes from the people who live here. They have been caught up as if they were an agency of the Federal Government.

Let me argue on their behalf to my colleagues and suggest that they are a group of innocents--a city. Baltimore's budget is not shut down, Richmond's budget is not shut down, New Orleans' budget is not shut down, Chicago's budget is not shut down, New York's budget is not shut down, San Francisco's budget is not shut down, but the DC government is shut down because of this threat. They have gotten caught up. They should be let go, and we can then negotiate on all other things.

I think the President understands this. I know majority leader Harry Reid understands this. I am hoping minority leader Mitch McConnell will give his support so this can be done in a bipartisan way, recognizing this is the Nation's Capital--not asking for any special preference for them, just allowing them to use their own money and operate their own city while we try to figure out how to get the rest of the government open and operating. I hope we can do that today. We have been working across the aisle.

I thank Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton for her leadership. The District of Columbia does not have Senators, so a few of us have to stand and speak for the people of the District, and I am happy to try to do that on occasion when I, of course, believe strongly in what they are asking.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 11, 2013, at 1 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Impacts of the Government Shutdown on Our Economic Security.''

Mr. President, I am not happy to be here, but it is an honor and a privilege to be on the Senate floor representing the people of Louisiana and speaking for constituents around the country on this important subject. It is unfortunate we are here today because of the irresponsible behavior of one group of Members from one party in basically one Chamber.

While I most certainly respect my colleague from Maine and think that the proposal she has generally outlined has a lot of merit--and I would add, there would probably be 15, 20, or 25 other Senators from both parties who have worked together to find common ground on many issues who could come up with equally meritorious proposals--it misses a very important point. The point is simply that the House Republicans and a handful of Senate Republicans have forced the government into a shutdown, hurting their own constituents--hundreds of thousands of their own constituents--and small businesses in their districts that do not deserve in any way to be dragged into this fight or to be used as bait in these negotiations. That point cannot be understated, and it cannot be ignored.

This whole issue is not caused because neither side can compromise or we cannot find common ground. We have proven that over and over on hundreds of issues. I myself, along with the Senator from Maine and the Presiding Officer--who is new here but not new to government--have been part of dozens of extraordinary efforts when there did not seem to be any way forward to find a way. So we know how to do that. We can do it. The problem is that there is a rump group of Republicans and the Republican House leadership that have made a terrible mistake in shutting the government down and putting government workers and our private sector partners--and I want to underscore ``our private sector partners.'' This government does not work with just Federal employees alone. They do the bulk of the wonderful work--many of them do--that we rely on every day--our neighbors, our relatives, our aunts, uncles, et cetera. But the real power is

not just with them, it is with the private sector that helps this government and our nonprofit and not-for-profit sector that joins with us in fulfilling the missions, the important missions of government that have been put at risk.

What that rump group did, though, was basically take all of this hostage until they get something. What they want to date is not clear. They want many things, all sorts of different things. One of them is to repeal the Affordable Care Act or to dismantle it in such a way that it cannot work to provide for the first time in the history of America affordable access to health insurance. There are other reasons that have been stated. They do not like the spending levels. They do not like the debt. They do not like Democrats generally. They do not like President Obama. There have been many things I have read about what they have said.

But no matter what they have said, their actions are irresponsible, reckless, and neither the President nor the Democrats should enter into negotiation with a gun to our constituents' heads. That is as simple as it is. There is a difference, but it is an important difference. House Republicans cannot get Democrats to any negotiating table unless they put the weapons down. These weapons are being used against their own constituents and their own businesses in their own districts, and it is not fair.

I want to read from one of my constituents, who says it better than I could. It is one of the messages that came into our office. We have been closed but functioning with a small staff. This message is from Vicki Cusimano, whose husband Mark is a 13-year military veteran who works on planes as a technician at one of our great air stations in Belle Chasse, LA, which, by the way, would be on high alert today because there is a storm out in the Gulf of Mexico. Thank goodness it is not a hurricane, but it is tropical storm Karen that has put the whole gulf coast a little bit on edge. It is not a huge and powerful storm, but these storms are unpredictable, as the Presiding Officer knows, being from a coastal State himself, how these things can happen.

Anyway, Belle Chasse is right there. Vicki is there with her husband Mark, a 13-year veteran. Mark says:

They've--

Speaking of Congress--

just pushed us away and said, ``Hey, we're going to fight,

and you're going to pay for it.'' Well, they're still getting

paychecks. We're not, and now we're trying to figure out how

we're going to fend for our families.

That is what Mark said.

Vicki says:

We have bills [to pay], and you can't tell Wells Fargo,

``Sorry. I can't pay my house note today because the federal

government has furloughed my husband.''

So I want to clarify because I have been one of the ones saying we do need to negotiate, but we need to negotiate without a gun to our head. We need to negotiate when the House decides and the House recognizes that their reckless behavior cannot be encouraged, that it is wrong. I know it is hard when you make a mistake to admit you are wrong. It is very difficult to do. But this would be a time to do it and then move on to negotiations that we can have over everything, whether it is the Affordable Care Act, whether it is the budget, whether it is appropriations. I am chair of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. I most certainly know how to negotiate a major bill, $42 billion. Dan Coats is my ranking member from Indiana. We have been in negotiations literally on and off for years as partners on the Homeland Security bill.

But when we asked, the Democrats and the President--but the Democrats asked to go to the budget conference to work out the differences between the budget in the House, the Ryan budget, and the budget in the Senate, the Murray budget--which, unusually, was cast during the same week. People will not even remember this because it was so long ago. It was sometime in April, sometime in April. The House passed their budget after an open, raucous debate. We passed our budget. I think we stayed on the floor until 5 o'clock in the morning, as I recall. I can remember being very tired and everybody was pretty aggravated. But we stayed here. We got our work done.

So when people call for negotiation, the time for negotiation was then, and we can still have this 6-month-delayed negotiation. But the House Republicans--the tea party Republicans and House Republicans-- have to put their weapons down. You cannot negotiate with a gun to your head. It is not fair--not just to us but to our constituents and to our businesses.

I am saying to my delegation and to the House Republicans: Do not use these reckless and irresponsible tactics. In addition, do not even threaten--do not even use the threat of not living up to the full faith and credit of the United States of America. You are really playing with fire then. That is what I believe the President is saying. That is what Democrats are saying.

Now, we have proven--it is not a matter of conjecture or a matter of guessing or a matter of, well, they say they negotiate, but they really will not. This is the record. Here is the record. This is evidence. This is not something anybody made up. It is in the Congressional Record. I am not going to read the whole sheet here, but I am going to say--what this says is that on 19 separate occasions Senator Reid or Senator Murray or Senator Wyden or one of the Democrats came to the floor--and here are the dates: April 23, May 6, May 7, May 8, May 9, May 14, May 15, May 16, May 21, May 22, et cetera, et cetera, June 19, 26, July, August, and then the latest was October 2. OK. Those are the facts. On every single occasion, there was one out of six Senators who stood on behalf of the others here and blocked it and said: No, we cannot, we will not go to a budget conference. Those Senators were Senator McConnell on May 8, Senator McConnell on May 9, et cetera, et cetera, Senator Paul on May 21, Senator Toomey on June 19, Senator Cruz--who has been the leader of this irresponsible and reckless strategy, which I do not think is getting his party or his future anywhere, but I will have to see about that--Mike Lee on July 17, and then Senator Rubio on August 1.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

So this is the record. When people say Democrats have not been willing to negotiate, that is false, false, false. We have been trying to negotiate for 6 months, and the way you negotiate is going to a budget conference.

Even now we are in control of the Senate. People elected us. No one appointed me to be here. The people of this United States elected us in a fair and square election. Some of us won by a lot, some of us only by small amounts, but it was an election by the people of the United States. The people elected the Republican leadership in the House.

They passed a budget. We passed a budget. All we have to do is go to conference. Not everyone in Washington is reckless. Not everyone loves to fight over our constituents' misfortune of unemployment and lack of business. There is a small group that put them on the chopping block. They need to take them off. They should not be used as fodder in political fighting and debate. It is not right. That is the argument.

When they remove the constituents and re-fund the government and put the government open again, we could then ask to go to conference. This time they should say yes. They just have to not show up. Sit at your desk and do not say anything, do not object. We will go to conference, a budget conference. Then you put everything on the table. Everything. You can talk about anything you want. You can talk about taxes, no taxes. You can talk about how much money you want to spend overall. Most importantly, you can decide how much revenue, how much in taxes you want. What the American people want is a budget. We have not had one for a while. We need to get one. We have had spending limits, but we have not had a budget. We have had spending limits, but we have not had a budget. Let's get a budget.

Then those of us who are appropriators--I am one of those, and in charge of helping to try to build the homeland security budget--the chairman then will give us the number that is agreed

to by the Democrats and Republicans. They will say to me and Senator Coats: Okay, you have X amount of money to spend. You have lots and lots of requests out there. You have lots of responsibilities. Let me list a few: Securing the entire border of the United States, all airports, all land ports, all river ports. We have to check all the cargo that comes into the country.

Our budget funds TSA, not the most popular group. But we try to keep our air travelers safe and support international commerce at every level. Every business traveler who is trying to cut a deal in Germany or in England or in Asia has to get either preclearance or global entry or travel. We support that effort. We want our businesses out there making contracts, bringing jobs to America. We cannot do that if this budget does not get done. So give us a number. We will put the budget together the best we can together. We will live within the restrictions that are given to us--or the guidelines. We will not spend one penny more than what the budget tells us.

But we cannot even get there because not everyone is being reckless. Not everyone is being unreasonable. There is clearly an identifiable group, led by the Senator from Texas. One of his colleagues or someone in the press--I am not sure who, but it was a great quote--said that Senator Cruz has led the Republican Party and the tea party into the middle of eight lanes of traffic and walked away. Eight lanes of traffic with traffic coming both ways is a very unsafe and dangerous place to be. They are going to have to find their way to the side of that road.

Open the government, and then say yes to a budget conference where all things can be negotiated, and have been for literally hundreds of years. This is not a new process the Senate and the House have been undertaking. This is regular order.

I am going to end here. This is day 5. I want to have this printed in the Record, since they are in the middle of traffic now, with very few safe ways out, but we could open the government and get to the negotiating table.

I want to have printed in the Record that for businesses, 800,000 workers--I know they passed a bill a little while ago to say those workers could be paid. That is important to do. But, again, it is not just workers. What about the contracts they are supposed to be giving out or the projects? They still do not have authorization even if they come back to work to do that. It is going to affect business. Let me say how much.

The Federal Government spends $400 billion in the private sector. That is $1 billion a day. So this reckless behavior has already cost $5 billion; every day $1 billion gone.

Is their resolution in the House going to reinstate that $1 billion that small businesses have lost or business generally? I do not think so. I did not read the fine print. I do not think that is in there. Every day, if you say 25 percent of all of our contracts should go to small businesses, that is $240 million a day for small businesses lost.

The government roughly makes about 150 loans to small businesses every day. We are in day 5. That is 600 loans gone. I could go on and on with every day how that affects businesses.

I am happy to see, in conclusion, that the House, in realizing they are in a bad, bad situation, has sent a lifeline out to the 800,000 Federal employees, their own constituents that they put on the chopping block and took these paychecks as negotiating fodder because they do not like the bill that passed 3 years ago, upheld by the Supreme Court, and being implemented in the majority of States, including States with Republican Governors.

That is foolishness, recklessness, and irresponsibility. But that is what they did. We did not do that; they did that. If we open the government, get contracts going again, stop threatening small businesses that have nothing to do with this, then we can go to the budget conference and open everything for negotiation.

Maybe we can do the medical device tax. I would like to work on flood insurance, for one. My constituents are going crazy. Flood insurance has gone up tenfold. I cannot even get to a negotiating table. We would like to pass the WRDA bill in Louisiana. I would like to see the Keystone Pipeline negotiated. I am for the Keystone Pipeline. The President is against it. But maybe we can find some way forward.

But we cannot go anywhere until we get out of eight lanes of traffic. The only way to do that is to admit you were wrong, open the government, and then go to conference and put everything on the table and let's talk.

I see my good friend from Connecticut here. I thank him for joining us on the floor today.

I yield the floor.

I am happy to have an opportunity to speak for a minute, particularly following my good friend, the Senator from Alabama. He and I have worked on so many issues. It shows one day you can work together and agree on something and the next day you can have different points of view.

He and I worked successfully on the RESTORE Act. We worked on the FAIR Act where we can get a portion of our revenues to bring back to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, from offshore oil and gas production. I have to say I have enjoyed working with him many times over the years we have been in the Senate.

Tonight I take issue with some of the things he said. To recapitulate, with much due respect, if everything the Senator said about the Affordable Care Act was actually factual--and it is not--if everything he said about the act was true, this time and method of shutting down the government to prove his point is still wrong.

You should not hold Federal employees, the economy of the United States, the governments of the United States--Federal, State, or local which will be affected by this--hostage because you agree or think that the Affordable Care Act is a bad act. It is the wrong method and it is the wrong time for that debate. That is the issue.

They are on the floor debating whether the Affordable Care Act is good or bad. This is not the debate we are having tonight. The debate we should be having tonight, whether it is good or bad, is, is it worth shutting down the government of the United States tonight? The answer is clearly no.

Secondly, the Senator from Alabama said this bill was passed in the middle of the night. It was passed late one night several years ago. It has been passed by the House and the Senate, signed into law as every bill by the President of the United States. In the case of this law, it was upheld by the Supreme Court and is being implemented by a majority of States in the United States. This bill, law, concept, and approach was debated for 40 years in 20 Congresses. This wasn't debated in 1 night, in 1 week, morning, noon, or midnight, but 40 years across many Presidents, both Republican and Democratic. The question was, How does the richest Nation in the world, the most developed democracy on Earth, a Nation with 1 million-plus workers, provide affordable health care without bankrupting the country and putting too much burden on either individuals or businesses?

There were ideas thrown out for the 40 years this was debated--not 1 night, not just on Christmas Eve. There were hundreds of hearings, thousands of documents, millions of pieces of paper and studies done on the subject, and there were about four options:

One, Medicare for all--lots of opposition to that. It is expensive-- popular but expensive.

The second option was a single-payer system similar to Canada's. It was very popular with some, deemed too socialistic by others.

The third option was Medicaid savings accounts, health care savings accounts. Republicans love it. Democrats don't like it, don't think it is fair to the middle class. It would only really help those at the top 2 percent. We said No.

So we compromised on an idea that came not out of the Democratic caucus but out of the Republican caucus, not out of a Democratic think tank but a Republican think tank--the Heritage Foundation--and we passed a private sector, market-based insurance choice for all Americans.

But that debate is over. At least the bill has passed; the debate will go on for a while--but not about shutting the government down. The debate as far as the bill passing, it is done. It is signed into law. And contrary to arguments made on the other side that nobody is interested in amending anything, I don't know if they have read their Congressional Record. It is right in the Congressional Record. We have already amended the law twice on a vote in the House and the Senate. Remember a year and a half ago we passed the 1099? We repealed that. It was a part of the way we paid for the bill. We reviewed it after we did it and thought that wasn't a very good idea, and we changed it. There has been another change to the law. It is not as if this law will never be changed. But for Republicans--particularly the extremists--every time we come up to a budget debate or the full faith and credit of the United States, to reengage in this debate, it is not fair to the American people, it is not fair to the workers of the United States, and it is not fair to the businesses in the United States. It is just simply not the right way to legislate.

So I would like the chairman from Alabama, as the ranking member of the Budget Committee, I wish he would get on the floor and urge his colleagues to go to conference on the budget he was talking about because I do agree with him. We do have a deficit problem. We do have a debt problem. We do have some entitlements that need to be looked at. We have to get our budget in balance. But the way to do it is not to hold the American people hostage, to take their jobs away from them and shut the government down. That is not

the way to operate. It is to go to conference.

We have tried 18 times to go to conference, and we have been blocked by the Senator from Texas. The Senator from Texas Mr. Cruz has objected to going to conference to debate the budget.

Let's debate the budget. Let's debate the appropriations bills. I am an appropriator. I am the chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Tomorrow thousands of people are going to be laid off. People who protect our borders, who help navigate international trade, help keep our hospital industry going, passports, et cetera, are going to be impacted. But instead of the Senator arguing and urging us--as the ranking member of the Budget Committee--to go to the Budget Committee to negotiate, they have objected. We can't go to a conference.

Senator Murray passed her budget months ago. We passed a budget. The House has passed a budget. They aren't the same budget, but it is their version and our version. Let's go to conference and work it out. But, no, we have to now threaten the shutdown of the entire government of the United States because the Republicans after 40 years of debate feel that was not enough. Forty years of debate was not enough. Two Presidential elections, which they lost, was not convincing enough. The majority of the Senate fell to the Democrats. That was not convincing enough.

The people who voted that way, their votes, their actions as a democratic nation are being disrespected by our colleagues on the other side. It is not as though this is a dictatorship. We were elected. I was even elected in a State where this is a difficult issue. It is not clear-cut. I have people for it and against it. But after studying and after soul-searching and after looking at all the options and understanding that I have 800,000 people in my State who are uninsured, that I have hundreds of thousands of small businesses that had been dropping their insurance because they couldn't afford it, and that 85 percent of our market is taken up by one company with virtually no competition, I said there has to be a better way. This may not be perfect, but the status quo is worse.

We had that debate, and their side lost. So instead of just trying to fix what they can or suggesting changes or finding a time where we can debate--and we have already changed two things; the President, administratively, has already pushed back one--they want to shut the government down. It is on their shoulders.

So I came to the floor--and I will ask for 5 more minutes--to talk about two things because I have hesitated to speak on this big issue because I have been focused for the last year on a real problem--not that this isn't a problem; it is a problem, but this is a real issue that with a little bit of attention from everyone and a lot less rhetoric, we could fix this, and that is helping to amend a bill that did pass and does need to be amended, and that is the Biggert-Waters bill.

I am not threatening to shut the government down over this; I am simply asking and raising attention to the fact that at some point we would like to have a debate on this floor and in the House on Biggert- Waters. This was a bill that was passed through here--it wasn't debated for 40 years, it was debated for a very short time. At the time the bill passed--Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 additional minutes.

The bill passed out of the committee on the Senate side. It never did come to the floor at all for debate. It went to the House, was changed pretty dramatically, and then was put in a conference committee. This happens sometimes. It is not usual, but it does happen. I am not complaining about that except that as a result of that, hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana, Texas, Florida, North Dakota, New York, and New Jersey, tomorrow morning--as I guess if the government is shutting down, they may not be able to go to work, if they have a government job--they will have a big fat bill coming on their flood insurance because Biggert-Waters, the bill in the House, had several very pernicious provisions.

There are about 5 million flood insurance policies in the country. There should be about 17 million, but there are only 5. There will be 17 million, or some such universe as that, but there are 5 million now, and we have many in Louisiana.

When a person goes to put their house on the market and they sell it, the act of selling, according to Biggert-Waters, removes their grandfathered status. They then go from that grandfathered status, which was below market rate--and that was done purposely to help people who live in coastal areas--not necessarily in secondary homes, not in condos, not in million-dollar mansions, but people who work on the rivers, who fish, who live in coastal communities, hard-working individuals and small businesses. This allowed them to live where they have lived, in our case, for 300 years. They didn't just move there in the 1980s. They didn't move down there for sunbathing. They have been there for 300 years, and this was to give them an opportunity to live in their homes with reasonable insurance.

In the Biggert-Waters bill, that trigger--the act of putting up a ``for sale'' sign or selling your house--eliminated the subsidy, virtually rendering a person's house valueless. And it is not just paying 25 percent more, 100 percent more, or 400 percent more. That would be hard enough, but in some cases it literally will render a house valueless because let's say, for instance, you paid $1,200 a year for insurance, but let's say the real rate is actually $15,000. The trigger mechanism means their flood insurance will go from $1,200 to $15,000 overnight. No one will buy a home that has a $15,000 annual premium for insurance. So if they have $400,000 in equity in their home or $500,000 or $150,000 in equity or perhaps they have $1 million in equity, it is gone because their house will not be able to be sold for virtually any price close to what it is worth. And that is not right. That comes close to a taking.

When this bill passed, I put an objection in the record. I said then that we would be back talking about it. There are ways we can fix bills. We need to get Biggert-Waters fixed and changed, and I want to submit that if we don't shut the government down, we can do it. We can negotiate, we can meet in conference and bring amendments to committees, and we can work together.

I want to read for the Record for a few minutes. I don't see anyone else on the floor.

Many in Congress were led to believe that the flood

insurance program was unsustainable, that it consistently

paid out more in losses than it collected in premiums, and

that the only way to balance the ledger was to eliminate

subsidies and raise rates. That simply isn't the case.

During 3 of the past 5 years, the program has actually

collected more in premium revenue than it paid out in losses.

In fact, the program has tabulated an annual surplus 18 times

during the 42-year period for which we have data.

Now, there were times, after Florida had that terrible year--2004, I think--when four hurricanes hit and of course after Katrina, where the program took a very strong hit, like when our levees broke and caused so much to drain from the fund. But if we look over time, it was about a $19 million average loss per year--not great but not horrible; not enough to generate the kind of bill that was passed here that is so draconian.

Continuing to quote:

I also think that most Members of Congress would be

surprised to learn that 40 percent of all properties which

are required to maintain flood insurance do not have an

active policy. This violation of the law costs the program

hundreds of millions in lost revenue. Stricter penalties

under Biggert-Waters for lenders who fail to enforce

mandatory purchase requirements will help to address this,

but it is difficult to justify these exorbitant rate

increases for people who are participating in the program and

playing by the rules when millions of property owners are

bucking their legal obligation to pay into the program.

I also think most Members of the Congress and the general

public would be shocked to learn that only 44 percent of the

money collected by the program is used to cover flood losses

in a given year. In fact, the program spends more money

paying the insurance companies and agents who administer the

program but don't incur any risk and servicing the debt

created by the Corps of Engineers than it spends on annual

flood losses.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the complete document from which I just quoted.

Madam President, these are several reasons why this bill needs to be amended. Again, I am not threatening to shut the government down. That is not appropriate to get amendments to this bill. There are ways to amend a bill, and we can work on that.

Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a quote from Michael Hecht. Michael Hecht is the executive director of GNO, Inc. He is leading a great delegation or a group of people--realtors, bankers, gulf coast residents and many others.

Madam President, let me read this quote from Michael Hecht. He said:

It is irresponsible to introduce drastic reforms that will

potentially devastate hundreds of thousands of American homes

and business owners before basic questions about forgone

revenues and high costs are answered. To proceed otherwise,

destroying the wealth of innocent Americans--who have done

exactly as the government has told them, maintained insurance

and often never flooded--is both economically unwise and

morally unjust.

I know my time is almost to the end. There is no one else on the floor, so I would like to speak until someone else gets here. But this is what we should be working on. We should be working on fixing the flood insurance. Tomorrow morning, October 1, these rates go up. These trigger mechanisms go into effect. It is devastating for people in our States. But the Texas Senators seem to be more concerned about the Affordable Care Act. I understand in their mind it is a problem and in their heart they are sincere. I understand their constituents are complaining. But it is the law, and we should not shut down the government over this.

I wish they would turn their attention to the Biggert-Waters bill, which the House and Senate passed. It needs to be amended. It needs to be fixed, and we need to negotiate a way forward.

No. 2, if people do want to fight about changes to the budget--I am an appropriator. We have been negotiating for years with Republicans about how much to spend, how little to spend, what programs to fund, what not. We do that in a budget conference. We do that in the appropriations bills. In fact, on this measure we are debating tonight the Democrats accepted the House number. Talk about negotiate. We just accepted the number they gave us for the continuing resolution. It was below our number. We want to fund the government in this month a little bit higher, but we even accepted their number. We said, fine, we will take your number.

We usually don't do that. We usually cut it in half or split the difference or say, you want this, we want this. We just took it. We just said yes. They can't even take yes for an answer because they are so committed to using the Federal Government as a hostage, or the full faith and credit of the United States as a hostage to change a bill they had every opportunity to change and didn't change or couldn't change, didn't have the votes to change. Maybe one day they will. But they don't have those votes in this Chamber tonight and they don't have those votes in the House. If they would let the whole House vote, they most certainly would not. They are just allowing the Republicans to vote. But if they would allow the House to vote in its entirety, representing the country, they would support the position of the Senate and they know that.

I end my remarks by saying let us focus on what we can do to fix some bills, the Biggert-Waters flood insurance bill being one of them. Let's not hold the American public and government hostage over a bill that passed, that was signed into law, and upheld by the Supreme Court and is being implemented by a majority of States in America. We can debate it and not shut down the government over it.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

I wish to put something else on the Record as well that is important for us to think about tonight, besides the underlying debate which I have spoken about and the Biggert-Waters reform which unfortunately is going to go into effect tomorrow. We are going to do a press conference tomorrow on it and try to get as much support as we can for Republicans and Democrats to fix it. But there is another issue I wish to bring up to the body tonight while we are waiting for the leader.

I think with the consent of both Republicans and the Democrats, we could allow the District of Columbia--which is one city that is going to be more impacted than others should the budget of the United States not be able to be negotiated in the next hour or hour and a half. So what I am hoping by raising this issue is that Members will consider that every city in the United States is going to operate tomorrow morning, every State is going to operate tomorrow morning, even if the Federal Government shuts down. They will be impacted, but they will continue to operate with their own money, on their own steam, under their own laws. I would like the same thing for the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia's budget is 75 percent local and 23 percent Federal. So most of their money is local money raised by local taxes, not the taxpayers of the United States. More impressive than that, they have balanced their budget--unlike us--for 18 years. People may be surprised to know this, but the District of Columbia, which is about 650,000 people, does not have a Senator to speak for them. They have a House Member, but the House Member has no vote. So I wish to speak on their behalf for just a few minutes. They have balanced their budget for 18 years and they have well over $1 billion cash in the bank.

So I am raising this to my colleagues to ask for us to consider a unanimous

consent resolution that several of us are putting together now. I would love for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to simply allow the District of Columbia to use their own money--even if the Federal money doesn't come forward, to use their own money raised by their own taxpayers to keep their own government operating, because they are under a special provision to us and have been for many years. People argue whether that is right. That is not the point of this. Whether it is right is of no consequence. It is the law. If we can give them some relief, it would be very helpful to the thousands of people who need a signal from us that just because we can't get our budget straight, just because our budget is in deficit doesn't mean we can't honor the fact that the DC budget is in surplus, $1 billion in the bank. It has been balanced for 18 years, and 75 percent of their budget comes from their own taxpayers. We should allow them to use their money to stay open.

I hope we avoid a shutdown. It doesn't look we are going to. It could be 1 day, it could be 2 days, it could be 3 weeks, it could be 4 months. Who knows how long it is going to be. I hope it doesn't happen, and I hope it is a very short period of time. But whatever it is, there is no reason in the world for the District of Columbia--as Mayor Gray said: We have balanced our budget for 18 consecutive years. We have well over $1 billion in the bank. Yet we cannot spend our own money to provide our residents with services they have paid for unless we get permission from a Congress that can't even agree to pay its own bills.

If we can't agree how to pay our bills, I think it is unfortunate. We should. But this is a big city. It is an important city. It is the Capital of the Nation. They should be able to operate tomorrow morning.

I am hoping in the next hours we can find a way. All it takes is a unanimous consent. I know tensions are running high. We can be angry at each other or frustrated, but we should not be angry with the District. They have done nothing wrong. They have balanced their budget. They need to be able to operate. Many people all over the Nation depend on the District government. So let's not shut them down while we are shutting ourselves down.

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

I thank the Senator for yielding for a question. I appreciate his leadership as an appropriator.

Senator Mikulski was on the floor earlier today, the leader of our committee and the debate about how much to spend and what we should spend our money on. Does the Senator understand that that could be done and it is done in the appropriations process? And if we could just get past this manufactured crisis we could actually accomplish what many Senators want to do, which is to discuss the level of spending? We can't even get there because we are stuck in a manufactured crisis by the Senator from Texas.

Is that the sense of my colleague as to where we are?

I thank the Senator, and let me, if I could, Madam President, say a few words about the bill I have the privilege and the responsibility of chairing--the Homeland Security bill. This is a $42 billion appropriations bill. I am very proud to say I have worked with my Republican colleague, the Senator from Indiana Dan Coats over the last 6 months to draft and fashion a bill.

In many public meetings, in public forums at the appropriations subcommittee level and at the appropriations full committee level, our bill was negotiated in good faith--Republicans and Democrats compromising over important issues such as: How many border agents should we have, how many security agents should we have on our border, how many detention beds can taxpayers afford, how many do the Republicans want, how many do the Democrats want, what are some of the important aspects of immigration reform and how do we build a technologically superior border that allows trade and commerce but keeps out terrorists and people who are undocumented and who do not have the proper certification to come into the country.

That is what we, who ran for public office, wanted to get here to work on, not to sit in an empty Chamber with people who, because they can't get their way 100 percent of the time, all the time, want to shut down the process.

So as chair of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, I most certainly can add my voice to the appropriators and to Members who say: It is time to move on. So let us do so.

But before I get into the specifics, I wanted to say a word about an issue that is critical to Louisiana and to States such as Texas-- Senator Cruz's home State. You would never know this, because I don't think he said a word about this issue in the 22 hours he was on the floor, but I know a little something about Texas, my neighboring State. I know a lot about Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, from the gulf coast. I have represented my State for now almost 18 years in the Senate and grew up along the gulf coast.

I want to make sure everybody understands that in 14 days there are going to be over 1 million people in the United States--many in Texas, many in Louisiana, many in Florida, some in Massachusetts, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera--who are going to basically see the value of their home, the equity in their home, go poof--poof. Whether their equity might have been $200,000 this week or $400,000 or $600,000 or $2 million, this is an equal opportunity destroyer.

This is because last year Congress passed the Biggert-Waters bill, which was supposed to fix the National Flood Insurance Program. It was supposed to fix it--make it sustainable, make it go from the red to the black, make the deficit go away, help the program to be more sustainable. I understand that. The problem is the way the bill was passed it is going to, in a few days, literally go poof for people who thought they had equity in their home because of a provision in the Biggert-Waters flood insurance bill.

That provision basically says this: When you put your home up for sale--when you sell your home--the grandfathered rate that was attached to your home for flood insurance is immediately dispensed with. So anyone selling their home who happens to have a subsidized flood insurance rate, which is lower than the private market, for good reason--which I will explain in a minute--their house becomes valueless.

Let me repeat this. This is not about flood insurance going up, this is not about losing your job, it is not about not being able to show up for work because the government shuts down, which is a big problem. But this is a real big problem for 1 million families because the house they have paid for, that they have lived in and thought they had some equity in so they could retire on that equity or send their kids to college is, poof, gone.

I would like to focus on fixing that problem. I know there are many people in Texas who would like it fixed as well, because when I go over there, I hear from them. When I go to Louisiana, and Mississippi, and Florida, I hear from people. But we can't even get to a flood insurance bill because we are on the floor talking about an issue that is completely manufactured.

This is not manufactured, ladies and gentlemen. The flood insurance issue is real. The flood insurance bill is a bill that actually passed and we have only 14 days to fix a part of it.

At 5 o'clock, in 5 minutes, I am going to a meeting in Senator Merkley's office, who is chair of a subcommittee, and we are going to try and work on this. But to do this we need cooperation. We need cooperation from all of our Members to say: Well, that might not be a problem in my State, but I can understand what Senator Landrieu is

saying and I can understand what some of the Republicans are saying. Let's see what we can do to fix this so people's equity does not vanish into thin air and cause lots of pain and suffering.

But as I say, we can't even talk about real issues because we have to talk about a manufactured crisis.

I see some of my colleagues on the floor, and I know they understand the chairman asked us to come and talk for a few minutes about our appropriations bills, so I will try to do this in 4 minutes, because when Senator Mikulski asks you to do something, you need to go ahead and do it. So I need to put this in the Record for my Homeland Security bill.

As I understand it, this government shutdown could happen because, as has been explained, we have two or three or four or five--not many-- Senators who have decided to manufacture a crisis about the continuing resolution and paying our bills, which we owe.

Every responsible, nondeadbeat person in the world pays their bills, and I don't know why we can't. But anyway, because of that, the Homeland Security bill we have worked on, which has been negotiated, may I say, without disagreement--I mean, this is kind of unheard of. Let me say, we had disagreements, but we worked them out. There were different views but we worked them out. We had big things to work out, such as this big new project being built in Kansas. I was not very supportive of it, but I had to listen a lot, I had to think, I had to negotiate, and I ended up putting a big project in this bill that I didn't 100 percent go along with, but I was convinced by colleagues for different reasons--and the White House weighed in, and others--to compromise.

The bottom line is I have a $42 billion bill that supports our borders, that keeps commerce going, and that keeps FEMA going. We have a terrible flood to deal with in Colorado, and I see the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Minnesota are both here, and they absolutely know what floods are all about. FEMA is trying to operate there. What do we tell people there on Monday? Sorry, we can't come help you get back into your home, get your children in school, get this hospital built again?

We have phones to answer, we have people to serve, we have borders to secure, we have trade to move next week, and shutting down the government is simply not what we should be doing. We should be fixing it, making it more efficient, saving money where we can, and serving the 350 million people in this country and around the world who depend on the American government to function.

In conclusion, let me say this. I had Marriott Corporation tell me today--Marriott, an excellent company, but conservative leaning from their top--Senator, would you please say, when you can, that the government is our biggest customer? When people think of government, they think only of government jobs. The Federal Government is the largest customer of Marriott Corporation, one of the largest corporations in the country. We buy a lot of goods and services from them. When we shut down, when we hesitate, when we don't operate with confidence, it affects every business in the world. If Marriott is going to take a big hit, imagine the hit smaller companies take, that can't take that hit or that break?

So on behalf of Marriott and on behalf of other companies that are going to get hit, please realize the government has a lot of impact on the private sector, and it is not fair to hurt our economy or any business--large, small, conservative, liberal, or moderate.

Last week, Mark Zandi of Moody's testified that a 3-4 week shutdown would reduce real GDP by 1.4 percent. This would be a devastating step backwards. In the second quarter of 2013, our GDP grew by 2.5 percent, more than doubling the 1.1 percent growth in GDP in the first quarter of 2013. And numerous studies have reported that, based on past experience, ``turning out the Federal government's lights'' would cost us $100 million each day. The hostage-taking approach of the House majority threatens such a shutdown and puts our economic viability at risk. We must do better.

A government shutdown would have devastating consequences on hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana. Of the 31,000 Federal employees in my State, 18,000 would be temporarily furloughed by a shutdown. That is 58% of the Federal employees in my State that would be out of the job. More than 24,000 active Louisiana military and civilian personnel and 320,000 Louisiana veterans could see much needed paychecks and benefits delayed.

Social Security services would also be significantly disrupted, which would have major implications for the 860,000 social security beneficiaries in Louisiana. New claims wouldn't be processed and the social security help line, which many of our seniors rely on, would not be able to take calls.

In just 4 days during the 1995 shutdown, 112,000 claims for Social Security retirement and disability benefits were not taken and 800,000 callers were denied service on the Social Security Administration's 800 number. Constituents of mine, like Susan Crandall, rely heavily on the Social Security Offices in Louisiana. Ms. Crandall uses the Social Security Office in Alexandria as a lifeline. A government shutdown would force her to search for help elsewhere. For her and others living in my State, this just isn't feasible.

A shutdown would also harm Louisiana students. More than 7,800 Louisiana students rely on work-study programs and 4,600 receive Federal loans to help pay for school. If there is a government shutdown, colleges and universities across Louisiana would not be able to disburse these funds to students.

The Small Business Administration would stop processing new loans, preventing nearly 420,000 small businesses in Louisiana from getting the credit they need.

The Federal Housing Administration has helped almost 10,000 mortgage holders in Louisiana thus far this year. If we allow a shutdown to happen, the FHA would not be able to process new loans, leaving aspiring homeowners out in the cold. Many potential homeowners in Louisiana are already hesitant to purchase because of the fear of flood insurance going up, and this will only add to their stress.

One of the core missions of the Appropriations Committee--and of Congress at large--is to make sure our Federal government continues to operate soundly. By adopting the continuing resolution that the House passed last week, with its poison pills that defund the Affordable Care Act and play favorites with which bills we pay, we would be failing the American people. We need to do our work to make sure the Federal government remains open and continue to fund implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It is the law of the land. Anything less is ill conceived.

And let me just say this. Operating the government on continuing resolutions is a failure in itself. I am disappointed, as I know Senator Mikulski is too, that we find ourselves in this position. When we pass CRs, we put the Nation on autopilot and fly blindly. Instead of passing the 12 appropriation bills that set priorities and invest in America's future, we fund yesterday's priorities instead.

As the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I hear every day * * * firsthand how important it is to keep our country safe and secure are at stake. Within the past year, our Nation has experienced a substantial rise in diverse attacks. If DHS continues to be funded at the 2013 post sequester level, we would not be able to adequately address or respond to these events. For example:

While we were all horrified by how simple, homemade explosives could wreak such havoc at the Boston marathon this year, we saw how critical it was that law enforcement and first responders have the proper training and equipment to respond to these incidents.

Years of robust grant funding for our first responders paid off in this instance. However, under sequester, grant funding would be at the lowest level since DHS was formed 10 years ago. If a government shutdown were to occur, all activity intended to help build State and local resiliency would cease.

Our cyber networks are under constant attack. There are 6 million probes or attacks on U.S. government networks each day, and among the attackers are 140 foreign spy organizations. Let me share some recent examples. Earlier this month the Syrian

Electronic Army defaced the Marine Corps website and hacked into numerous print media websites. We also heard news reports of large- scale espionage acts perpetrated by a group of highly sophisticated hackers for hire operating in China. Cyber attacks breach our government, military, and private networks to steal information, including valuable corporate secrets. All of our combined Federal resources are needed to strengthen safeguards on our data and detect these malicious efforts before they can disrupt critical government and financial networks. Without the $108 million increase requested in fiscal year 2014 for cybersecurity, DHS would defer implementation of the intrusion detection system for civilian Federal programs, known as Einstein, by 1 year; and delay expansion of cyber-attack information- sharing with States, leaving 19 without access to timely data. A shutdown or continued sequester will threaten progress in this area.

In the wake of serious chemical plant incidents in West, TX and in Ascension Parish, LA, this summer, we are reminded that chemical safety and security is imperative, for citizens and first responders. In the hands of terrorists, chemical attacks could cause widespread devastation and loss of life. The DHS inspection program to prevent wrongdoers from gaining access to harmful chemicals has reduced risk by 40 percent. But there are still 4,300 facilities for which DHS has the responsibility to ensure a security program is completed and maintained. We cannot afford to delay this important work by underinvesting in it, but that is exactly what would happen under a sequester level.

The existence of thousands of poorly secured commercial radioactive sources globally poses an ongoing challenge to our national security. We continue to face the threat of a weapon of mass destruction or dirty bomb being detonated in one of our cities or ports. A radiological attack would incite mass panic, shut down our major transportation systems, and cause severe economic damage. We cannot afford to stand meekly by. The Department of Homeland Security program called Securing the Cities, which is a partnership with State and local governments, is designed to detect and prevent a nuclear attack in our highest risk cities. New York has been the test bed for this program over the past few years; but it is now expanding to other major cities--Los Angeles being the next location. We need to ensure that this expansion is funded, not suspended.

For 4 years in a row, the Department of Homeland Security has had to tighten its belt and operate with reduced funding. The impacts of sequestration have made it worse. Let me highlight just a few examples of why sequestration has been harmful and why it will be particularly damaging to DHS under a long-term continuing resolution:

The Coast Guard has operated its surface and air assets 25 percent below planned levels under sequestration. This has resulted in 35 percent reduction in drug seizures and a 22 percent reduction in interdiction of undocumented migrants.

Customs and Border Protection would not be able to hire any of the new officers for our air, land, and sea ports of entry requested in the fiscal year 2014 budget. This is bad for travel and trade. Travel volume to the U.S. is up 12 percent since 2009, and is expected to grow 4-5 percent in each of the next 5 years. In 2011, international travelers to the U.S. generated a trade surplus of $43 billion--that set a U.S. travel and tourism record. Without these new officers, we could once again see spikes in wait times during the spring at gateway airports such as New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, Dallas, and Miami. In fiscal year 2013 under sequester, wait times for arriving passengers at these airports rose over 4 hours on multiple occasions. We must ensure the United States is open for business, or else travelers will take their business elsewhere.

Similarly, CBP would not be able to sustain current operations in fiscal year 2014 because the agency will not have access to $110 million in fees collected under the Colombia Free Trade agreement. Without these funds, CBP would have to, No. 1, rely on furloughs of up to 16 days per employee to close the gap; No. 2, likely be forced to commence an agency-wide hiring pause for front-line personnel; and No. 3, fall below the Congressionally mandated staffing levels for CBP officers and Border Patrol agents. This will have the negative impact of longer lines at our ports, slower processing and inspection of food and other products entering our country, and fewer illegal aliens being apprehended and removed at our borders.

DHS would not be able to implement safeguards to prevent unauthorized release of classified information. Vulnerabilities in the existing system were highlighted in the Wikileaks releases and the more recent disclosures by Edward Snowden. There was no funding in fiscal year 2013 for this type of activity so DHS's classified data will not be adequately protected without fiscal year 2014 funding.

Critical infrastructure protection efforts would be hindered. For example, without the $34 million above the fiscal year 2013 sequester level, inspections of chemical plants to prevent weaponization by terrorists will be delayed. Funding to better coordinate Federal chemical programs--in the wake of the West, Texas facility explosion-- will not be provided. Increases to prevent catastrophic impacts to critical infrastructure during manmade or natural disasters will be eliminated.

And lastly, on the administrative side, just last week DHS Undersecretary for Management, Rafael Borras, testified in front of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight and Management about the difficulties of managing multiyear acquisition programs under a never-ending string of continuing resolutions. While I agree that is challenging, what is worse than a short-term spending bill at sequester levels, would be a government shutdown. Even a short lapse in funding has the potential to drive up costs across the entire DHS acquisition portfolio.

Because of these impacts, it is critical that we conference our fiscal year 2014 Senate bills with our House counterparts that we can address the weaknesses that continuing to operate at sequestration levels would entail. A conference would also ensure a necessary delay to flood insurance rate increases since the House and Senate Homeland Security bills contain identical language on this issue. Time and time again, Senators have heard from their constituents about the skyrocketing increases in flood insurance rates. Many homeowners throughout the United States will see their rates rise to unaffordable levels. For example, up to 2.9 million policies nationwide could see their previously grandfathered rates become absolutely unaffordable. While data for each homeowner is still incomplete, one resident in my State of Louisiana could see rates increase from $633 to over $20,000 per year. That makes homeownership unachievable for many Americans and traps others in houses that they cannot sell.

Exacerbating the damage caused by irresponsible funding levels under the sequester is the looming threat of a politically-motivated Federal government shutdown. While most--about 84 percent--Department of Homeland Security employees are deemed mission-essential during a shutdown, because they are military or law enforcement personnel or deal with critical safety or security issues, DHS like all other Federal agencies would be operating at a greatly reduced capacity. For example:

The Department of Homeland Security would not be able to maintain and operate E-Verify, the Internet-based system that allows employers to voluntarily determine the eligibility of prospective employees to work legally in the United States.

Vital research and development would be delayed. For example, funding to develop next generation screening technology for TSA would dry up. This means funding for the development of technologies to improve detection, lower false alarms, and decrease wait times at airports would end. Funding would also end for the development of countermeasures to biological and nuclear threats.

Preventative measures and pre-emptive planning efforts with State and local governments for natural and man-made events with FEMA and critical infrastructure experts will cease. This leaves communities less able to respond to catastrophic events in the middle of hurricane season, not to mention for no-notice events like

earthquakes or bombings such as those at the Boston marathon. A lack of preparedness will cost the Federal government more money in recovery efforts and lead to unacceptable and unnecessary loss of life.

Under a shutdown, law enforcement training would cease, including training conducted through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and the Secret Service's J. Rowley Training Center. This would impact CBP, ICE, Secret Service, the Federal Air Marshal Service, and would delay their ability to bring new officers and agents into operational service.

And as I noted earlier, while the majority of the frontline law enforcement personnel such as CBP's Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's investigative and detention officers, Transportation Security Administration aviation passenger screeners, FEMA disaster response personnel, and the U.S. Coast Guard will continue working under a shutdown, many of these employees live paycheck-to-paycheck. Since their biweekly paychecks would be stopped during a Federal funding hiatus, these women and men may not be able to pay their rent or mortgage or may have to reduce purchases of food or medicine for their families. An unnecessary government shutdown breaks faith with our heroes on the front lines, adversely impacting their morale and distracting them from their important and often dangerous duties. No one wants that.

We need to get our work done. We need to pass a clean continuing resolution that keeps the Federal government open and fully funds the Affordable Care Act. After that is done, we need to move to the harder task at hand--agreeing on a budget for fiscal year 2014 and finalizing bills so that our agencies have the appropriate funding for their critical missions--instead of lurching from one funding crisis to the next.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the distinguished teacher and agricultural scientist, Dr. Milton C. Rush. Dr. Rush devoted his career to his students, his research, and his tireless efforts to protect and enhance one of our most important sources of nutrition.

Dr. Rush began his career in rice pathologies in 1970 as a professor at Louisiana State University after receiving a doctor of philosophy degree in plant pathology from North Carolina State University. For the next 40 years at Louisiana State University, Dr. Rush has provided the agricultural community with invaluable research on rice pathology that has greatly benefited farmers throughout the State of Louisiana and the Nation. Under his leadership, the LSU rice program experienced its greatest years of agricultural research expansion and development. Through his years of service as an educator and pathologist, Dr. Rush created enduring changes in a wide breadth of research and direction to impact and improve the lives of countless students, rice growers and consumers within and throughout his community.

Perhaps Dr. Rush's greatest accomplishment came in his development of a new rice variety, which he named after his beloved wife, Blanca Isabel. This new high-yielding, early harvest, long-grain rice variety was the culmination of decades of research focusing on the epidemiology and control of rice diseases, rice tissue transformation, and the breeding of disease-resistant rice strains. This new purple rice is bred in Louisiana and contains anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant properties. His outstanding development of a more healthful and nutritious variety of rice will continue to provide unparalleled benefits to the citizens and communities of Louisiana and the Nation, delivering an improved alternative for generations to come.

Dr. Rush has been honored frequently during his distinguished career. Among these honors are the Florence Avalon Daggett Professorship in Rice Pathology, the LSU AgCenter's Distinguished Service Award, the Sedberry Award for outstanding graduate professorship, memberships to the American Phytopathological Society, the Rice Technical Working Group, the Germplasm Advisory Committee, and two terms as president of the Louisiana Plant Protection Association Constitution Committee. Dr. Rush's career leaves a legacy of accomplishment and dedication to his family and all those who are a part of the agricultural communities that his tireless work impacted.

Dr. Rush has been and continues to be an inspiration to all those who have benefited from his decades of service to the field of rice pathology. It is with my heartfelt and greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me along with Dr. Rush's family in recognizing the life and many accomplishments of this incredible mentor, professor, and agricultural scientist, as well as his lasting impact throughout the Nation.

Mr. President, I understand that Members can speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I would like to speak about an issue completely separated from the international concerns we all share because closer to home there was an action taken today by the House of Representatives that has me extremely concerned as the senior Senator from Louisiana and a leader in our delegation and is an issue I have worked on literally since the first day I came to the Senate now almost 17 years ago.

Today, the House of Representatives, unfortunately, in presenting their WRDA bill, which was a bill that was negotiated at great length with great skill by Senator Barbara Boxer, the chair of the committee of jurisdiction, and the ranking member, Senator Vitter, who did an outstanding job for the country and for Louisiana, negotiated quite skillfully a bill that was very balanced.

It contained no earmarks, as have been eliminated by the majority of the Congress. It did give a green light for projects that had received a positive Chief's report, which is the signal to go forward with the project for flood protection or navigation or dredging under the jurisdictions of the Corps of Engineers.

Unfortunately, for unexplained public reasons today, which we will find out as soon as we can and report, the House of Representatives, the leadership, decided to drop probably the most important project in the bill for Louisiana, and that project is Morganza to the Gulf. The saddest part about all of this, the House removing this project, this project has already been authorized three times in the last 15 years by the Senate and twice by the House of Representatives.

The people who would be benefited by this project, about 200,000 people who live in south Louisiana, Lafourche Parish and Terrebonne Parish, the same area that was battered by Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, and the oilspill, the same people who have suffered through flood after flood after flood, the same people who have taxed themselves, gotten $200 million of their own money to build phase 1, have now been told no by the House of Representatives.

For what reasons I cannot understand. They have gone through all of the processes required. They have waited in line, a line that should never have been there because they were given a yes. But as the Presiding Officer knows, under the Corps of Engineers' rules, they can say yes to your project initially and then it takes so long to get to your project because we have a very inefficient system. If the estimates then come in at 20 percent over the original estimate, the law kicks you out and you have to start all over. So they started all over. That is the tragedy of this action. We were furious they had to start all over, but that was the law. So they did. They got a positive Chief's report in June.

The House of Representatives just arbitrarily decides, even with a positive Chief's report, they are taking Morganza to the Gulf out of the bill. I am calling on the Louisiana delegation to stand, particularly members who are in the study committee. I think we have a leader of that committee, Congressman Steve Scalise, who was my partner in the RESTORE Act and has been a very able leader in our delegation, to absolutely put their foot down on this WRDA bill moving any further in the House of Representatives until we can get justice for this project.

Our people are doing everything we can to elevate our homes, to fight for fair flood insurance, to tax ourselves to build levees. We have traveled all over the world to find the best engineers in the Netherlands because we do not seem to have enough engineers in Washington who understand that you can live safely below sea level. Sometimes you have to because that is where the ports are. We do not have the luxury of living on tops of mountains. We are running the Mississippi River. We are not running a ski lodge

in Vail. So our people have to live there. They are not living in mansions. They are not living in condos. They are living in fishing villages and fishing camps and in very middle-class neighborhoods, trying to make a living for themselves, their families, their communities and keep this country operating.

We are running the biggest oil and gas operations out of Houma, LA, the town the House of Representatives has just literally made defenseless. They have no levees. New Orleans now, after Katrina, and Jefferson Parish, and Saint Bernard Parish have $14 billion of taxpayer money invested. That is a lot of money. I know some people in the country get very aggravated about that. Why did they get $14 billion?

The country should have given us $1 billion 10 years ago and we could have saved them 14. But the Congress decided not to do that. We asked. We begged. We pleaded. No. No. No. No. So one day the levees broke. Then the bill came due. It was a big bill, $14 billion. Wait until the next bill comes through. In that whole timeframe, that whole timeframe where our people are begging, drowning, houses going underwater, begging for help, the government keeps telling us no, no, we sent $161 billion to this Treasury from off our shore, from offshore oil and gas--$161 billion.

We come up here and try to get $1 billion for this levee, $2 billion for that. We are told: We cannot afford it. I tell you, I do not have the power to do this. I do not. But if I did, and if I were the Governor, I--and I do not think he has the power--but if I could, I would shut down every rig in the Gulf of Mexico until this Congress gives the people of Louisiana the money we need to keep ourselves safe from drowning, from flooding.

I would turn the lights off in Washington and in New York and in Maine. We are tired of it. The people in our State cannot survive without levees. The country cannot survive without our people living where we do, to run the maritime, to run the oil and gas industry. Houma, LA, does not deserve this. Terrebonne Parish does not deserve it. Lafourche Parish does not deserve it. Our delegation is not going to stand for it.

So my message to the Speaker of the House and my delegation in the House and the House is that bill will never see the light of day unless Morganza is put back. I do not know who is going to do it or how they are going to do it.

Please do not tell me there is not enough money. We send alone, Louisiana--forget Texas, forget Alabama, forget Mississippi--Louisiana alone every year sends about $5 billion to the Federal Treasury just from oil and gas severance taxes, not counting sales tax, income tax, property taxes, other taxes--property taxes would not come here, but income taxes would come here, corporate income taxes would come here. That is not even counting that.

I am tired of begging for nickels and dimes. So the House of Representatives better put Morganza to the Gulf back into that bill. No. 2, I have not read the whole bill. I was just informed about it. So I may have to take this back off the record. But I was told also what they did is say: We are not going to approve projects that had a Chief's report after our committee meeting in June. Then they put some language in that says something like: No project can go forward until they have a committee meeting of the House of Representatives.

So they are basically engaging in earmarks again. In other words, having voted to take earmarks out--I was not for that. I did not go along with that, but they did, the leadership of the House, take earmarks out. They are now trying to put earmarks back in. So the only way you get back in is if you go through their committee and get your project approved, which is earmarking in a different way.

So on two fronts I think the House is wrong. I think they were wrong to take Morganza out, wrong to put this new system in.

The third and final thing I am going to say about this, which is the saddest thing, because Morganza has to go back in, there are some other projects they might have taken out that I am simply not aware of. But I know that the bill that left this Senate was very fair. It was without earmarks. It was based on the science and the process of the Corps of Engineers. But to all of my friends in the Senate, even when I get Morganza back in there, and our delegation does, the problem for all of us is that there is still going to be $60 billion of authorized projects for all of our States. The total budget of the Corps of Engineers next year that Senator Feinstein chairs--and I serve on the appropriations committee for the Corps of Engineers--will have only $1.6 billion for new construction.

The total Corps budget is only about $5 billion. So think about it. Is this not the silliest thing? We have $40 billion of already authorized WRDA projects. The WRDA bill now has $20 billion minus Morganza to the Gulf, which they just took out for no good reason, after 20 years of our people suffering. So they are going to add that 20 plus Morganza which will get back in there. Then we are going to have $60 billion, and all we have is a few billion to fund it.

It is a system that is so broken and so unfair. Every State feels this. It is not just Louisiana. What people hear is my strong voice, I hope, for the people of Louisiana. We feel it the most. We feel it most frequently just because of our geography. But every community in the country is suffering from this. We do not have enough infrastructure, water infrastructure. Our ports are not where they need to be. Our rivers are not dredged to the depths they need to be. We do not have enough to maintain our maritime industry in this country.

This is undermining our economic strength and our international competitiveness, besides being terribly unfair to people who happen to live along the coast, which is 60 percent of our population. So I am just sending a little warning signal to the House of Representatives: There is no way, no way, that this WRDA bill is going to go anywhere without the Morganza to the Gulf in it. It is not happening. This is one of those sort of do or die kind of issues for the Louisiana delegation.

We have waited 20 years for this project. It is justified from every angle, shape, form. It has been studied to death. The local people have put up $200 million of their own money. I am not going home to tell them they are not going to get the project. So I would strongly suggest our House delegation, particularly our leader Steve Scalise, the Congressman from Jefferson Parish, who is the chairman of the Republican study group, go have a long talk with the chairman of the committee and figure out how to get this project back in the bill.

I wish to move to another subject. I wish to offer at this time two amendments to the underlying bill that we are trying to debate, which is a very important bill on energy efficiency. I know we cannot debate any amendments, but I think I can offer two amendments.

I wish to tell my colleagues, the first I am offering with Senator Wicker and Senator Pryor. It would ensure that the Green Building Rating System, which is adopted by GSA currently, and new ones under this bill that are put forth by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman--I support the bill--do not put at a disadvantage the materials that meet the new standard of energy efficiency in the underlying bill.

There was some question about the way the bill was initially worded when it came out of the Energy Committee that it would disqualify some domestic materials that meet the energy efficient standards from being included. This would have a very devastating effect on our lumber and forestry industry, as well as others. I will send that amendment to the desk when I am able and hope that we will get through this skirmish over health care and get to some very important amendments that will help us create jobs in America, Louisiana, and help our industries.

Secondly, I wish to speak about an amendment Senator Wicker and I will offer that would ensure that small companies are excused from the requirements to submit their products for expensive third-party testing to achieve ENERGY STAR certification.

This is really a small business issue. I think this is acceptable to all parties. I am not sure there is any opposition, actually, to either one of these amendments, which is good. We have worked very hard with the parties who might

have a different view to see if we can find some common ground, and I think we have.

I have spoken about these amendments which I will submit for the Record when possible, and I hope we can get to the bill of Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman. They have worked very hard, and they have built a great coalition.

Again, this is a bill that could create many jobs and opportunities for our people. While there are a lot of Members talking about how so- and-so should focus on jobs and he or she should do this or that, we have a bill whose essence is to create very good jobs in America and to save us energy costs and to reduce costs to taxpayers and consumers.

I believe this bill was voted unanimously out of the energy committee and, if not, it had overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats. Ron Wyden, the chairman our committee, who was a very able and centrist leader on these matters, has worked very hard. I am very familiar with the benefits of this bill. I am sorry it has become caught up in the politics of health care, but it is important that we get to this Energy bill.

It is most important that the House of Representatives fix a terrible thing for Louisiana which happened just a few hours ago when they stripped, now for the 20th year in a row, a project that has been certified, stamped, sealed, and approved by the Corps of Engineers. For whatever reason they did this, I do not know. I hope they will fix it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Warren Easton High School in New Orleans, LA. The students, faculty, staff, school leaders, alumni and community members are celebrating 100 years of excellence in education and service to the New Orleans community.

Warren Easton High School is the oldest public high school in Louisiana. Named after a local superintendent of schools in New Orleans, Warren Easton represents what excellence in education should look like. The school has transitioned from when it opened as an all- boys high school in Uptown New Orleans, then a new location on Canal Street in 1913, to a co-educational setting in 1952 and racial integration in 1967. However, perhaps Warren Easton High School's most profound transformation came in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

After the storm that devastated so many lives, infrastructures, and a way of life in New Orleans, Warren Easton was forced to close its doors for 1 year. Fortunately, thanks to the strong and spirited history of this school, Warren Easton was opened as a charter school by a group of alumni. Even in the face of challenge, the leaders and alumni created an institution that would not only honor the history of Warren Easton and its previous success, but will continue to create new opportunities for the students of New Orleans.

Since its opening in 2007, Warren Easton High School has seen tremendous growth. During the last school year, 925 students attended school there. For the past 2 years, the school has celebrated a graduation rate of 100 percent. Student performance has also dramatically increased since the reopening of Warren Easton High School with a school performance score of 64.7 in 2007 and 133.9 in 2012. Further, the 2012 graduating class received over $6.2 million in scholarships from more than 20 colleges and universities.

Warren Easton is a leading example of excellence in education. Its leaders, alumni, and students continue to be an inspiration to their community. It is with my heartfelt and greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Warren Easton High School in New Orleans, LA, and its long-time alumni community as they celebrate 100 years of success.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak for a few minutes about an exciting new area of collaboration between the United States and Israel, our critical ally and friend in the Middle East. Especially given the current state of affairs in the Middle East, the United States' clear and unyielding support for Israel is more important now than ever before. For the past few years, I have been a leader in the effort to enhance US-Israel collaboration on energy development, which is why I am excited today to introduce a bill that will expand this critical relationship, along with Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski.

In December 2010, Israel made the largest natural gas discovery in the world in the past decade off its coast in the Mediterranean. The discovery, known as the Leviathan field, is estimated at 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, bringing Israel's total natural gas reserves to an estimated 30 trillion cubic feet. This will likely be able to satisfy Israel's domestic gas demand with enough left over to export for years to come--in fact, it is estimated that if only half of this natural gas was produced, Israel would have 100 years of its natural gas needs met.

Not only is the Leviathan discovery a game changer for Israel, both economically and geopolitically, but it is also an incredible chance for the U.S. to share our energy expertise to support a critical ally while creating economic opportunities here at home. The Gulf Coast, which provides one third of all domestically produced oil in the nation, arguably has the most advanced offshore energy industry in the world; Israel, until very recently has had almost none. With limited domestic production capacity, a non-existent regulatory framework, and a lack of related academic programs, Israel can greatly benefit from collaboration with the U.S., and we are uniquely qualified to lead this effort to help Israel successfully develop this natural resource. As Israel is a leader in the research and development, hi-tech and startup spaces, enhanced collaboration between the two countries can be mutually beneficial.

The United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement Bill recognizes the important relationship and potential for further collaboration between the United States and Israel on energy development, including natural gas and alternative fuels, and seeks to bolster that relationship by encouraging increased cooperation in the academic, business, governmental, and other sectors.

The bill first recognizes energy collaboration with Israel as a strategic interest of the United States and officially encourages collaboration between the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Israel Science Foundation. It then further encourages cooperation between both countries' academic communities in energy innovation technology, technology transfer, and analysis of the geopolitical implications of new natural resource development. It also urges business development engagement in the private sectors and regular engagement between the two countries' relevant agencies, departments and ministries to share best practices.

Additionally, the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement Bill expands two already existing joint grant making programs, the Binational Industrial Research and Development Program, BIRD, and the Binational Science Foundation, BSF. Under the bill, these two programs would now include projects focused on natural gas, which are expected given Israel's recent discoveries, as well as entrepreneurial development and the advanced hi-tech sector. The legislation also reauthorizes the BIRD and BSF programs through fiscal year 2024.

Finally, the bill allows for the authorization of a United States- Israel Offshore Technology Center to further academic and technology research and development collaboration. This is the direct result of numerous conversations, meetings, and visits I have had over the past few years, and I am especially excited about the potential of this type of formal academic collaboration. Israeli universities have some of the world's leading engineering departments, but have no petroleum engineering faculty. Imagine the synergy if we could combine Israeli engineering expertise with our universities, who have the leading petroleum engineering departments in the world.

This bill builds off of my previous efforts to enhance collaboration between the United States and Israel on energy development and exploration. For several years, I have been working to strengthen the relationship between our two countries and to help our domestic energy industry. In October 2011, with the help of the Department

of Commerce and the Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance, I organized the first ever oil and gas trade mission to Israel and brought 12 Louisiana oil and gas companies to the region. The mission was such a success that the Department of Commerce and I ran another trip in October 2012 that brought 15 American companies and universities. Additionally, in June of 2012, I hosted a delegation of 10 high-ranking Israeli officials in Washington and Louisiana to meet with US industry experts and federal officials, including then Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. The delegation also attended the Central Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease sale in New Orleans and visited Port Fourchon and the Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, facility in Cameron Parish. By seeing our work first-hand and learning about the US regulatory framework, they left with a keener understanding of our industry.

The United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement Bill will continue to advance this important goal. Through energy collaboration, academic cooperation, and continued government dialogue, we will create jobs for our domestic oil and gas industry and support a critical ally in the Middle East in its quest for energy independence and security. I thank my colleagues Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski for their leadership on this issue and for cosponsoring the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak for a few minutes about an exciting new area of collaboration between the United States and Israel, our critical ally and friend in the Middle East. Especially given the current state of affairs in the Middle East, the United States' clear and unyielding support for Israel is more important now than ever before. For the past few years, I have been a leader in the effort to enhance US-Israel collaboration on energy development, which is why I am excited today to introduce a bill that will expand this critical relationship, along with Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski.

In December 2010, Israel made the largest natural gas discovery in the world in the past decade off its coast in the Mediterranean. The discovery, known as the Leviathan field, is estimated at 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, bringing Israel's total natural gas reserves to an estimated 30 trillion cubic feet. This will likely be able to satisfy Israel's domestic gas demand with enough left over to export for years to come--in fact, it is estimated that if only half of this natural gas was produced, Israel would have 100 years of its natural gas needs met.

Not only is the Leviathan discovery a game changer for Israel, both economically and geopolitically, but it is also an incredible chance for the U.S. to share our energy expertise to support a critical ally while creating economic opportunities here at home. The Gulf Coast, which provides one third of all domestically produced oil in the nation, arguably has the most advanced offshore energy industry in the world; Israel, until very recently has had almost none. With limited domestic production capacity, a non-existent regulatory framework, and a lack of related academic programs, Israel can greatly benefit from collaboration with the U.S., and we are uniquely qualified to lead this effort to help Israel successfully develop this natural resource. As Israel is a leader in the research and development, hi-tech and startup spaces, enhanced collaboration between the two countries can be mutually beneficial.

The United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement Bill recognizes the important relationship and potential for further collaboration between the United States and Israel on energy development, including natural gas and alternative fuels, and seeks to bolster that relationship by encouraging increased cooperation in the academic, business, governmental, and other sectors.

The bill first recognizes energy collaboration with Israel as a strategic interest of the United States and officially encourages collaboration between the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Israel Science Foundation. It then further encourages cooperation between both countries' academic communities in energy innovation technology, technology transfer, and analysis of the geopolitical implications of new natural resource development. It also urges business development engagement in the private sectors and regular engagement between the two countries' relevant agencies, departments and ministries to share best practices.

Additionally, the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement Bill expands two already existing joint grant making programs, the Binational Industrial Research and Development Program, BIRD, and the Binational Science Foundation, BSF. Under the bill, these two programs would now include projects focused on natural gas, which are expected given Israel's recent discoveries, as well as entrepreneurial development and the advanced hi-tech sector. The legislation also reauthorizes the BIRD and BSF programs through fiscal year 2024.

Finally, the bill allows for the authorization of a United States- Israel Offshore Technology Center to further academic and technology research and development collaboration. This is the direct result of numerous conversations, meetings, and visits I have had over the past few years, and I am especially excited about the potential of this type of formal academic collaboration. Israeli universities have some of the world's leading engineering departments, but have no petroleum engineering faculty. Imagine the synergy if we could combine Israeli engineering expertise with our universities, who have the leading petroleum engineering departments in the world.

This bill builds off of my previous efforts to enhance collaboration between the United States and Israel on energy development and exploration. For several years, I have been working to strengthen the relationship between our two countries and to help our domestic energy industry. In October 2011, with the help of the Department

of Commerce and the Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance, I organized the first ever oil and gas trade mission to Israel and brought 12 Louisiana oil and gas companies to the region. The mission was such a success that the Department of Commerce and I ran another trip in October 2012 that brought 15 American companies and universities. Additionally, in June of 2012, I hosted a delegation of 10 high-ranking Israeli officials in Washington and Louisiana to meet with US industry experts and federal officials, including then Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. The delegation also attended the Central Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease sale in New Orleans and visited Port Fourchon and the Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, facility in Cameron Parish. By seeing our work first-hand and learning about the US regulatory framework, they left with a keener understanding of our industry.

The United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement Bill will continue to advance this important goal. Through energy collaboration, academic cooperation, and continued government dialogue, we will create jobs for our domestic oil and gas industry and support a critical ally in the Middle East in its quest for energy independence and security. I thank my colleagues Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski for their leadership on this issue and for cosponsoring the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.