Floor Statements

Seconded.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. But I wish to say the Senator from Oklahoma raises a very good point. But this comes under the jurisdiction of the committee that he is actually the ranking member on, with the new chairman, Senator Tom Carper, to be done in an authorizing action, not on this particular bill.

It does need some updating. But the other point that needs to be looked at--I think the Senator from Oklahoma will agree with me because the Federal Government cannot do everything--is what role the States should play in helping counties, particularly rural counties such as what happened in Joplin, MO, such as what has happened in Oklahoma, such as what has happened in Tennessee. What should States do to help these more rural counties that get hurt?

I agree with the Senator in the need for an update. This is not the time to do it, however. I urge a ``no'' vote on his amendment and turn it over to the authorizing committee, of which he is a member, to provide for appropriate oversight in that venue.

The Senator is correct that this bill is full of reforms that he and I and others have worked on. But every one of these reforms has been agreed to on both sides of the aisle; this has not. The Senator could continue to work with us and find a way forward.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on this now. I promise we will give him its full attention and get this taken care of but at a later date.

Mr. President, I understand there is no more time necessary on this amendment, and we call for the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 3415. It is my understanding there is no opposition to this amendment. We may be able to voice vote it tonight. But let me take 1 minute to explain it.

This is a technical correction to an underlying provision that is already in the bill we will be voting for.

In the current law, there is a perverse incentive for local governments, when they are recovering, to hire outside contractors as opposed to maybe working with the workers who are already on the payroll--firefighters and police officers. It was not intended to be that way. But because FEMA only reimburses for contractors and not for the local police or firefighters under certain circumstances, we believe and FEMA believes it is actually spending more money.

So the essence of this amendment is to save money, being neutral in the law, so the local officials can make the best decisions whether they want to hire either contractors, if it makes sense, or their own people, if it makes sense, so the recovery can go more efficiently and, hopefully, save money.

FEMA supports it. The firefighters support it. It is technical in nature, which is why I asked the chairwoman tonight if we could voice vote it. I do not think there is any opposition.

Mr. President, I would like to call up the amendment, if I could. The staff reminds me I did not do that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters--one from the International Association of Fire Chiefs and one from the International Association of Fire Fighters--be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to just say a word broadly in response to Senator Coburn's statement and his offering of several amendments to substantially in some cases and in other cases not so substantially change this bill.

I thank the Senator from Michigan for yielding just a minute, and I know the Senator from New York wants to respond as well.

Generally, I would like to say that I know the Senator from Oklahoma is very sincere. Literally no one in this Chamber has worked harder to try to get more reform and eliminate duplication. But I just wish to say one thing in response. When we have emergencies in this country, like when we go to war, no one comes to the floor to debate how we are going to offset $1.4 trillion worth of expense for two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan. When we came to the floor a couple of years ago to vote for tax cuts, many of us claimed and said at the time there would not be enough money to cover them, we had to borrow money to do that. The other side sat quietly and didn't say a word. Why is it that when Americans--when a building is blown up in Oklahoma or when the levees break in Louisiana or when the worst storm in 50 years comes, we have to debate an offset?

Now, this bill is not going to be offset; it is going to pass, I hope. And I understand Senator Coburn's comments, but I want to say that when Americans are hurting, people can recover if we give them the adequate response early enough in the disaster.

Secondly, and then I am going to sit down, the thresholds, the debris, and the contracting--there are some legitimate concerns, but there are reforms in the underlying bill that will help to do better contracting, better debris removal, and more efficient cleanup and recovery after a disaster.

So I ask the Senator, please, I understand we have a big budget issue, but this is not the time to debate the cost of this bill. What it is time to debate is what should be in it and what shouldn't, and I think the Senator from New York has more specifics about some of the recommendations.

But I thank the chairlady from Maryland for organizing this effort tonight, and I will submit more for the record in the morning.

Mr. President, as Congress continues its work addressing our Nation's looming fiscal crisis, we must also remember that we have a responsibility to our taxpayers to improve outcomes for young people and their families by driving Federal funds more efficiently toward evidence-based, results-oriented solutions.

In August, I shared promising news from my home State, where evidence-based Federal programs, including the Social Innovation Fund, the Investing in Innovation Fund, and the High Quality Charter Schools Replication and Expansion Program, are improving education and other important outcomes for thousands of young people throughout Louisiana.

Bipartisan support for investing in what works has been growing for decades.

Under the George W. Bush administration, the Office of Management and Budget put a priority on improving the performance of Federal programs and encouraged more rigorous evaluations to assess their effectiveness.

In 2010, the Simpson-Bowles Commission Report, the ``National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform,'' specifically recommended urging all Federal agency heads to ``identify ways to shift from inefficient, unproductive spending to productive, results-based investment.''

And in May of this year, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, instructed all Federal departments and agencies to demonstrate the use of evidence throughout their fiscal year 2014 budget submissions.

At a time when America is facing enormous social and economic shifts, budget constraints at all levels of government, significant demographic changes, and an increasingly globally competitive, changing workforce, our Federal Government must continue to drive public resources toward evidence-based, results-driven solutions that work.

I believe the following principles can serve as the foundation of an ``invest in what works'' agenda: develop and use a common evidence framework to inform program design and management; use evidence, data and information about performance to inform policy and drive continuous improvement in Federal programs and grantee interventions; promote innovation and flexibility and focus on outcomes rather than simply on compliance; increasingly target investments in interventions with the strongest evidence of effectiveness, as well as support the development and rigorous evaluation of promising, innovative interventions; and, seek opportunities to promote and invest in systems and communities that are collaborating to achieve significant community-wide impact or change at scale.

I would encourage the administration to incorporate these principles in its fiscal year 2014 budget request, and to consider reserving 1 percent of Federal program funds for independent, third-party evaluations. These recommendations, which are consistent with the 2010 Simpson-Bowles report and the 2012 OMB memo on evidence and evaluation, would provide Members of Congress with reliable information to gauge program effectiveness and drive continuous improvement.

In pursuing this approach, we should remain steadfastly focused on equity and serving children and families in greatest need. Done right, an ``invest in what works'' framework can advance an equity agenda. Competitive grants can augment and help maximize the impact of important formula funding. When designing such policies, we must prioritize grantees serving children and families most in need and leverage lessons learned to improve the impact of larger scale programs. Moreover, the Federal Government should make technical assistance a priority to potentially high-impact grantees--including rural grantees--that have less expertise in preparing Federal grant applications.

I am fully committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help improve outcomes for young people and their families through the development and implementation of an agenda that invests in what works.

Madam President, I would be happy to accommodate other Senators, but I came to the floor to speak for about 10 minutes on the supplemental. I see Senator McCain. I don't know if he came to speak on Senator Inouye or on the supplemental.

Senator Merkley and Senator Stabenow now want to introduce an amendment. Is that appropriate?

If the Senator would yield, the Senators here, the Senators from Oregon and Michigan, just wanted 1 minute to get in their amendment, and then I would speak for a few minutes and then Senator McCain. Would that be all right?

Madam President, I am going to truncate my remarks to 5 minutes. I came to speak on the supplemental and the great needs in the Northeast.

Generally, because I know there are other Senators who have other items to discuss, I will come back at a later time for extended remarks. I wanted to come to the floor just to say to all of my colleagues that I hope we can be patient with one another, supportive of the tragedy that is unfolding in the Northeast related to Superstorm Sandy, which I think has caused greater destruction than maybe many people in this Chamber and this Capitol realize.

While Katrina--something that I am very familiar with, a storm that hit us over 7 years ago, in August of 2005--received headline after headline after headline, week after week after week, television station after television station, Superstorm Sandy, because it hit a more dense area that is potentially not as--I don't know--as camera friendly, and maybe because of some of the other things that have subsequently happened, the terrible shooting and other issues in the country, I am not sure the public quite understands how devastating this storm has been for a very important part of our country. I will try to frame it with just a few statistics that might grab people.

In my State, when Katrina hit, in one weekend we lost 18,000 small businesses. To us, it was a nightmare. We have about 1.2 million people in our metropolitan area and 18,000 small businesses represented a tremendous loss. But the businesses that have been lost in New York and New Jersey exceed 300,000. As to homes, we have lost 275,000 homes along the gulf coast. In New York alone we have lost over 350,000 homes, and those numbers are still coming in for New Jersey.

While it is not on the television every night, and CNN is not filming from New York or from New Jersey or any of these communities on a nightly basis like they did from New Orleans and the gulf coast for weeks and weeks, it would be wrong for us in this Congress to underestimate the damage that has been caused to this area.

One thing I wanted to say today is--and I will come back for extended remarks--it is not only the resources that we need to get to this region, $60 billion is not all that the region requested. They requested $90 billion and had good justification for asking for that. The President trimmed back those responses to get to the real core of what was needed for family, for flood insurance, for the Corps of Engineers, for mitigation, for transportation, so that the recovery could get underway in a very balanced and robust way.

It is not all that the region wanted, but it is a large enough package, Madam President, to give hope to people in New Jersey and New York, and, yes, Connecticut, Maryland, and a few other places that were hard hit as well. Then they could begin making plans for recovery.

There are whole towns, portions of towns, communities. I was able to actually get on the ground with Senator Menendez and visit one of the Long Beach communities in New Jersey--I think it was the Long Beach community there--and saw just miles and miles and miles of shuttered businesses, one after another, along that Jersey shore. I just saw a small portion of it that day. It goes on for miles and miles and miles.

Now, just for the next minute or two, yes; insurance is going to cover some of these losses, but insurance is not going to cover it all. In the bill that we are about to talk about, and are talking about now, there is an authorization for $9 billion more for flood insurance. If we don't authorize this $9 billion, which is part of the 60, there will not be flood insurance claims paid to people who have paid into the flood insurance program. They will not be able to get out their legitimate claims. So that is one of the important reasons we should pass the supplemental.

In the final 30 seconds I have--and I will come back and speak longer--there is the mitigation part of this. After Katrina, one of the smartest things we did was to send to the communities on the gulf coast, to mitigate against future storm damage--it was about $14 billion total for several of our large Corps projects. It was a lot of money. People grumbled and complained, but, you know what. They sent it.

The Corps built the project on time and underbudget, and in this last storm that we had, Isaac, which just hit, which people don't even remember--we had a storm in August, the same date as Katrina--there wasn't a drop of water in Orleans Parish or Jefferson Parish except for lower parts of Jefferson, not even in Saint Bernard. Why? Because the mitigation worked.

So the two points I want to make and then, in turn, yield to Senator McCain and others who are on the floor, are this bill is not everything that was requested, but it is robust enough to do the job. No. 2, it has tools in it to help the recovery move faster, more streamlined, more efficiently. And, No. 3, mitigation works.

So as this debate goes on, I know some people are getting hardened hearts about this bill already, but I am asking you to understand that in a catastrophic disaster such as this, regular process won't work, regular appropriations won't work. Supplemental disaster funding is essential, and not just for FEMA but for transportation, for the Corps, et cetera.

I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership at a very difficult time. I will come back and speak more about this later, but I wanted to get some of these statements in the Record as we begin this debate, and I will come back and talk more about the Homeland Security portion of this bill.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, Senator Leahy has been handling this bill for the last 24 hours or so, and I came to the floor earlier to speak about the supplemental. I gave truncated remarks because Senator McCain had personal remarks to make on behalf of his colleague Senator Kyl. At this time I would like to reengage in the debate regarding the supplemental for just a few minutes.

I know this day has been back and forth with personal tributes on the floor as well as the debate on the supplemental for Superstorm Sandy. I have come to the floor specifically as chair of the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, which does have jurisdiction over FEMA, and to say a couple of words about this piece of the supplemental.

I understand that other chairs of the Appropriations Committee have come down to talk. I know there have been discussions with regard to the Corps of Engineers mitigation issues and fishery issues in this bill, which is the subject of Senator Mikulski's committee. Senators have talked about housing and urban development, community block grants--that is in HUD--and transportation, which is under the jurisdiction of Senator Murray's committee.

I have been pleased and honored to be the chair of the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee for several years now. I am proud we are actually seeing the benefits today of the reforms that were put in place as our first responders respond to literally the worst disaster to hit the Northeast in 50 years.

I wish to address a few things and clarify some numbers for the record. The fact that Hurricane Sandy is not on the news every night and CNN is not broadcasting from the shores of New York and New Jersey does not mean it is over. The news coverage happened for a few days, and then they went to other pressing issues of the day. As new challenges arise, it is natural that the attention of the press will be diverted. The problem is that it may be natural, but it is not necessarily good for people who have lost their homes and their businesses. Without quick action from Congress and robust, definitive, comprehensive support from the Federal Government, these individuals and communities will not be able to recover.

As the Senator from one of the States hardest hit in recent memory from a natural disaster, I am able to testify as an eyewitness to what happened in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and what is possible in the recovery for Hurricane Sandy.

It has been over 7 weeks since Hurricane Sandy claimed the lives of more than 130 Americans and destroyed--and I want to correct the record--340,000 homes and 200,000 businesses. Just to make a comparison, as a result of Hurricane Katrina, which primarily hit south Louisiana and Mississippi, we lost 275,000 homes. This is 340,000 homes that have been destroyed. That is more than Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And 200,000 businesses is substantially more businesses that were lost compared to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which was about 18,000 businesses. Part of it is due to this area being more densely populated.

The storm was broader in its width and more intense in certain areas. It was broader geographically, and the area is so densely populated. I think it is hard for people from less populated areas of the country to understand how much destruction can be leveled in a certain area. More than 8.5 million families were left without power, heat, or running water. Many of those families have power, heat, and running water now, although not all.

Just this week, I picked up the phone to call my friend Marc Moriel, president of the Urban League. The Presiding Officer knows him very well. He

was a former mayor of New Orleans. The cell phone wasn't answered. Finally, through a couple of connections, I got through to him. Their offices are in New York.

He said: Mary, I am sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner. Our phones are still out from Sandy.

They have not lost their home, but they were out of their home for some time.

As I said before, just because it is not on the news does not mean it is over. There are thousands of small businesses, nonprofits, individuals who, without this package of hope and support, are not going to get back to business to help get their communities back and help get our economy running again. The Urban League is just one example. There are still individuals without phone service, power, et cetera.

It is important for us to understand that insurance proceeds are not going to be enough. Even with a well-insured population, it is not going to be enough to handle the catastrophe that befell this particular area of our country just a few weeks ago.

Over 500,000 people registered for temporary housing and individual assistance. FEMA provided over 14 million meals, over 16 million liters of water, 1.6 million blankets, and 100,000 tarps. DOD delivered 9.3 million gallons of gasoline to 300 gas stations, and over 270 million gallons of saltwater was pumped out of transit tunnels. At the peak of the response, 17,000 Federal personnel and over 11,000 National Guardsmen were involved. The response was robust, quick, efficient, and I think the taxpayers of our country and I know the people of the region are grateful for the new FEMA that showed up. Not everything is perfect. We still have more work to do, but the response was much better than it was during Katrina.

However, that initial response is now over and the recovery must begin. The recovery cannot begin in earnest and no great plans can be made. Neither can Governor Christie nor Governor Cuomo, nor Mayor Bloomberg, nor Mayor Cory Booker or any other mayors, including the mayor of Hoboken in New Jersey, who testified before our committee this week--none of the mayors can get about framing the possibility of recovery without knowing certain things. They need to know that, A, FEMA is going to have enough money to stick with this, which they do not now because they are going to run out of money in the spring; they have to know that FEMA has enough money to go the distance. They don't know that now and, without the supplemental, they won't.

They have to know they have some mitigation money in this bill to repair and fix some of the dunes that were well engineered that protected communities and to rebuild dunes that failed because they were not engineered properly. No one is going to reinvest--or very few people will reinvest--behind a dune that is going to fail again.

There are fisheries communities along the coast and tourism along the coast, much like the gulf coast. So all of these pieces of recovery are very important. We can't send FEMA money without the Corps of Engineers money or without community development block grant money, because the recovery is a holistic recovery. Most people are very smart and many people like to hold on to what money they have left. They can't take the last little bit of their savings to rebuild their house and invest in their business if they don't know the Federal Government has sent money for the dune repair or the Federal Government has sent enough money for their fire station to get up and running. What good is having a business with no fire protection? What good is having a business if there is no grocery store within 30 miles? All of these things work together, and that is what we saw with Katrina. The question is not whether FEMA has enough money; the question is whether HUD has enough money--well, it is important that FEMA have enough money but it is not the only question. FEMA has to have money, but so does HUD, so does Transportation, and so does the Corps of Engineers.

In addition to what is happening along the east coast, nine States and the District of Columbia have been declared major disasters--well, nine States and the District of Columbia, from Hurricane Sandy. It is not just Hurricane Sandy. We had a record number of disasters last year around the country. So, yes, there is some money in this bill for other disasters and if we have to increase or decrease that sum to accommodate some of the interests of the Members, we are going to have to do so to get help not only to the Northeast but to other areas of the country as well.

North Dakota experienced terrible flooding. We were a little bit short on sending money to them and perhaps we should fix that in this bill. There have been some agricultural areas that have been very hard hit. We should fix that in this bill. Americans who pay taxes expect when they have catastrophic disasters for us to step up, and I think that is a good expectation, and I think it is a very fair expectation. When this country went to war over a decade ago, we didn't pay for the $1.4 trillion that it took to secure this Nation from an outside threat. Sometimes threats come right to our front door and we have to be willing to step up and give a small amount compared to the $1.4 trillion we spent in Iraq and in Afghanistan that was not offset. We should be willing to spend a very small portion--$60 billion in this case, over $100 billion for Katrina and Rita, and a few billion here and there. That is not an insignificant amount of money. A billion dollars is a lot of money. It sounds like a lot to anyone listening, but relative to the cost of the war, it is a very small investment in our own country to help Americans who have played by the rules, done everything they were asked to do--they even have insurance--yet, without this bill, there is not enough money in the insurance program to cover their claim when they file it.

If we don't pass this bill, there is not enough money for FEMA to do its job. There is not any money in the Corps of Engineers. There is not enough money for transportation. Taxpayers in the Northeast and around the country deserve our best efforts.

If there is a Member who believes there is something in this bill, whether it is in my section of the bill which is Homeland Security, or whether it is in another--if a Member doesn't feel as though a request in here is justified, please offer an amendment, let us debate it, and maybe we can make some changes or a modification. Unfortunately, I can say from personal experience, from watching the mayors I represent--all 300-plus mayors in the State, dozens of them, their communities were destroyed by Katrina, watching them struggle month after month, year after year, not knowing what money was coming from Washington; whether the levees would get repaired or not; whether there was going to be a community development block grant--I can tell my colleagues it is better to fund this on the front end like this. Give them the money, let them make their plans, and then in a year or two if it is not enough they can come back and we can make some adjustments as opposed to not acting or giving them too little to start. If we do that, the recovery will not get off in a very balanced way and it will cost the taxpayers so much more in the long run.

I am kind of responsible for the FEMA portion, for the flood insurance portion, and for some of the reforms that are represented in this bill. I wish to speak for a minute about those reforms because sometimes it is not just about investing money and giving money from Washington; sometimes it is giving money in a way that saves taxpayers money in the long run or for investing in a way that includes reform. This is not your grandfather's FEMA. This is a new FEMA. We have some new reforms that are authorized in this bill that are going to help the recovery go more quickly, and I wish to talk about that for a minute.

This is a reform-minded supplemental. It is drafted to be a more efficient, more effective, and smarter recovery, saving taxpayers money over time. It reauthorizes two expired pilot programs from the Post- Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, allows the use of money to repair rental housing units, and to expedite debris removal procedures. If my colleagues have not been a witness to a catastrophic disaster, they cannot imagine the amount of debris generated from either a massive fire or a massive flood. The old rules FEMA operated under were a waste of money, a waste of time, and lost opportunities. So we

have expedited debris removal. We cannot start rebuilding a community until we can get rid of the debris. It sounds like common sense and it is, but there are some bureaucratic hurdles and we are trying to fix those in this bill.

It allows the State to draw on a portion of the hazard mitigation funding from FEMA in order to leverage mitigation opportunities in the reconstruction process. Under the current program, it takes 18 to 36 months for funding to become available. By then, most reconstruction is already completed or underway. This would expedite--sort of forward fund--some of those projects, which is another smart move to save taxpayers money.

It codifies grants on the basis of flexible and fixed estimates for expedited removal of debris. It codifies temporary legislative measures that were connected to facilitate smarter recovery after Katrina and Rita, including third-party arbitration. It removes the penalty on alternative projects, and it allows FEMA to consolidate facilities.

Specifically, if 10 fire stations were lost in an area, instead of FEMA reimbursing each fire station one at a time, they can make a general estimate and receive a global settlement. We did this for our schools in New Orleans. One hundred out of 146 were destroyed. It was one of the smartest things we ever did, because before we passed this reform legislation, FEMA was asking us to count every piece of chalk that was missing, every eraser that was missing, every broken pane of glass, and would only refund the building of that exact building on that exact spot. We were able to have a global settlement where we could reconstruct our schools not to build a school system that had been built for the past century but to build a school system for the next century. That is what makes sense. That is what is in this reform supplemental.

There are better tools, more carefully designed to save taxpayers money and to help expedite a recovery of one of the most important financial centers in the world--not just in the United States but in the world. Every part of this country is important, but this particular part of the country, a lot of the rest of us depend on it operating at full speed, particularly as this recovery moves to our rearview mirror.

Let me say two or three more things. It reduces bureaucratic waste by eliminating the current practice of duplicative agency reviews for the same project. It will allow the rebuilding to, of course, consider environmental needs, but it does not require an environmental review by every agency for the same project. It helps to streamline that, which I think makes sense and honors the environment at the same time.

It includes tribal governments for the first time, which I think is an important addition, and, again, it requires an assessment of Hurricane Sandy's impact on local government budgets in the event they might need to borrow some additional money to continue to operate.

So, again, the $60 billion number is a large number. It is billions of dollars. It is not by any means pocket change, but compared to the money that was outlaid for the wars--$1.4 trillion--when disaster comes knocking at the door in our hometowns, whether it is Hoboken, NJ, or New Orleans, LA, taxpayers who live by the rules and pay their taxes every year expect not a handout, not an easy recovery, but they do expect the Federal Government to step up and at least be a partner in their recovery.

There are local taxes that are going to have to be raised. There are hundreds and thousands of hours of volunteer efforts that go into rebuilding communities. Churches and faith-based organizations show up and do more than their share, but the Federal Government most certainly should step up and help the Northeast and a few other disasters that are still open.

All of this money will come back to us one-hundredfold as these businesses get back up on their feet, start paying taxes again to the community, and hire people who have been laid off. In fact, it creates a little bit of a stimulus boon in those communities, which benefits the tax base as well, as taxes are collected from every business that is reopened. So it is a smart investment for us.

I would recommend to my colleagues if they have specific objections to a specific part of the bill to file an amendment. We can discuss it, we can debate it, and perhaps we can shave a little here or a little there; perhaps there are some things that can be done differently. But this has gone under careful review by the administration and by the different members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle, and, of course, vetted and screened by Governor Christie, a strong Republican leader in our country, Governor Cuomo, a strong Democratic leader in our country, and numerous mayors and elected officials have looked at this.

This is not something that was written in the dark of night somewhere by somebody who doesn't understand about disasters. It was carefully crafted for a very strong recovery for the Northeast.

I thank the Members for their suggestions and I look forward to the debate, and hopefully we can get this supplemental done before this Congress adjourns. I think the people of the Northeast and the rest of our country are depending on us to do that.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, for those of us in the Chamber, and those of us listening, that was one of those beautifully crafted and beautifully deliberated and eloquent statements not only about a Member's service as a Member of the U.S. Senate, but a vision of the world we created and what we can be again. It is so appropriate for the parting words of the Senator, who is truly among the great that has served here.

I have had the great pleasure of working with the Senator from Maine. As she very graciously pointed out, we served together on the Small Business Committee. We were the first of two women to chair a major committee for an entire Congress.

There are Members here--Senator Mikulski and others--who served for many years with Senator Snowe. For the minute that I have before others speak, I just wanted to say that she has served for over 34 years in public office. Her integrity is beyond reproach. She served with intelligence and grace that is widely admired, not just on Capitol Hill and in her home State of Maine, but broadly throughout the United States and the world. Her capacity for hard work and tedious negotiations on important matters is inspiring to us all. She has been a clear and clarion voice for women and girls in Maine, the United States, and around the world, for their legal rights, their economic advancement, and their social advancement.

Above all, as we just heard, she has been a clarion call for common sense and common ground. She was literally involved in every major effort in the last 30 years to find common sense and common ground in a place that is getting harder and harder to find those two qualities every day. So it is with a deep sense of regret that I, for one, am going to have to say goodbye to her as a colleague and a Member of the Senate.

I want her to know that I will continue--and I know many of my colleagues feel this way--to work as closely with her in any capacity of her choice to continue to be a great voice for compassion, compromise, and common sense.

The people of Maine are losing a great Senator. The United States is losing a unique talent that has served this country and this institution so magnificently. We wish her the best, and we say a respectful goodbye.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: Federal disaster assistance. As you know, along the Gulf Coast we keep an eye trained on the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season. This is following the devastating one-two punch of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. Unfortunately, our region also has had to deal with the economic and environmental damage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 and more recently Hurricane Isaac. Due to this history, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, ensuring Federal disaster programs are effective and responsive to disaster victims is one of my top priorities. While the Gulf Coast is prone to hurricanes, other parts of the country are no strangers to disaster. The Midwest has tornadoes, California experiences earthquakes and wildfires, and the Northeast sees crippling snowstorms. So no part of our country is spared from disasters--disasters which can and will strike at any moment. This certainly hit home when the northeast was struck by Hurricane Sandy in October of this year. With this in mind, we must ensure that the Federal government is better prepared and has the tools necessary to respond quickly and effectively following a disaster.

In order to give the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, better tools to respond after a future disaster, I am proud to have filed S. 3672, legislation that will make a small but important improvement to SBA's disaster assistance programs for impacted businesses. This provision builds off of SBA disaster reforms enacted in 2008 and ensures that SBA is responsive to the needs of small businesses seeking smaller amounts of disaster assistance. These are the businesses that are burdened the most by liens on their primary personal residential homes when they could conceivably provide sufficient business assets as collateral for the loan. In particular, the bill I am filing today would clarify that, for SBA disaster business loans less than $200,000, SBA is required to utilize assets other than the primary residence if those assets are available to use as collateral towards the loan. The bill is very clear though that these assets should be of equal or greater value than the amount of the loan. Also, to ensure that this is a targeted improvement, the bill includes additional language that this bill in no way requires SBA to reduce the amount or quality of collateral it seeks on these types of loans.

I note that this provision is similar to Section 204 of S. 2731, the Small Business Administration Disaster Recovery and Reform Act of 2009 that Senator Bill Nelson and I introduced last Congress. A similar provision also passed the House of Representatives twice last Congress. H.R. 3854, which included a modified collateral requirement under Section 801, passed the House on October 29, 2009, by a vote of 389-32. The provision also passed the House again on November 6, 2009, by a voice vote as Section 2 of H.R. 3743. So this provision has a history of bipartisan Congressional support. I want to especially thank Ranking Member Olympia Snowe for working with me to improve upon this previous legislation. The legislation that I am filing today is a result of discussions with both her and other stakeholders. I believe that this bill is better because of improvements that came out these productive discussions.

This bill addresses a key issue that is serving as a roadblock to business owners interested in applying for smaller SBA disaster loans. After the multiple disasters that hit the Gulf Coast, I and my staff have consistently heard from business owners, discouraged from applying for SBA disaster loans. When we have inquired further on the main reasons behind this hesitation, the top concern related to SBA requiring business owners to put up their personal home as collateral for smaller SBA business disaster loans. This requirement is understandable for large loans

between $750,000 and $2 million. However, business owners complained about this requirement being instituted for loans of $200,000 or less. I can understand their frustration. Business owners, in many cases who have just lost everything, are applying to SBA for a $150,000 loan for their business. SBA then responds by asking them to put up their $400,000 personal home as collateral when the business may have sufficient business assets available to collateralize the loan. While I also understand the need for SBA to secure the loans, make the program cost effective, and minimize risk to the taxpayer, SBA has at its disposal multiple ways to secure loans.

Furthermore, SBA has repeatedly said publicly and in testimony before my committee that it will not decline a borrower for a lack of collateral. According to a July 14, 2010 correspondence between SBA and my office, the agency notes that ``SBA is an aggressive lender and its credit thresholds are well below traditional bank standards. . . . SBA does not decline loans for insufficient collateral.'' SBA's current practice of making loans is based upon an individual/business demonstrating the ability to repay and income. The agency declines borrowers for an inability to repay the loan. In regards to collateral, SBA follows traditional lending practices that seek the ``best available collateral.'' Collateral is required for physical loans over $14,000 and Economic Injury Disaster Loans, EIDL, loans over $5,000. SBA takes real estate as collateral when it is available, but as I stated, the agency will not decline a loan for lack of collateral. Instead it requires borrowers to pledge what is available. However, in practice, SBA is requiring borrowers to put up a personal residence worth $300,000 or $400,000 for a business loan of $200,000 or less when there are other assets available for SBA.

While I do not want to see SBA tie up too much of a business' collateral, I also believe that if a business is willing and able to put up business assets towards its disaster loan, SBA should consider that first before attempting to bring in personal residences. It is unreasonable for SBA to ask business owners operating in very different business environments post-disaster to jeopardize not just their business but also their home. Loans of $200,000 or less are also the loans most likely to be repaid by the business so personal homes should be collateral of last resort in instances where a business can demonstrate the ability to repay the loan and that it has other assets.

In closing, I believe that this commonsense fix will greatly benefit businesses impacted by future disasters. This provision does not substantively change SBA's current lending practices and it will not have a significant cost. I believe that this legislation would not trigger direct spending nor would it have a significant impact on the subsidy rate for SBA disaster loans. Currently for every $1 loaned out, it costs approximately 10 cents on the dollar. Most importantly, this bill will greatly improve the SBA disaster loan programs for businesses ahead of future disasters. If a business comes to the SBA for a loan of less than $200,000 to make immediate repairs or secure working capital, they can be assured that they will not have to put up their personal home if SBA determines that the business has other assets to go towards the loan. However, if businesses seek larger loans than $200,000, then the current requirements will still apply. This ensures that very small businesses and businesses seeking smaller amounts of recovery loans are able to secure these loans without significant burdens on their personal property. For the business owners we have spoken to, this provides some badly needed clarity to one of the Federal Government's primary tools for responding to disasters.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: Federal disaster assistance. As you know, along the Gulf Coast we keep an eye trained on the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season. This is following the devastating one-two punch of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. Unfortunately, our region also has had to deal with the economic and environmental damage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 and more recently Hurricane Isaac. Due to this history, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, ensuring Federal disaster programs are effective and responsive to disaster victims is one of my top priorities. While the Gulf Coast is prone to hurricanes, other parts of the country are no strangers to disaster. The Midwest has tornadoes, California experiences earthquakes and wildfires, and the Northeast sees crippling snowstorms. So no part of our country is spared from disasters--disasters which can and will strike at any moment. This certainly hit home when the northeast was struck by Hurricane Sandy in October of this year. With this in mind, we must ensure that the Federal government is better prepared and has the tools necessary to respond quickly and effectively following a disaster.

In order to give the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, better tools to respond after a future disaster, I am proud to have filed S. 3672, legislation that will make a small but important improvement to SBA's disaster assistance programs for impacted businesses. This provision builds off of SBA disaster reforms enacted in 2008 and ensures that SBA is responsive to the needs of small businesses seeking smaller amounts of disaster assistance. These are the businesses that are burdened the most by liens on their primary personal residential homes when they could conceivably provide sufficient business assets as collateral for the loan. In particular, the bill I am filing today would clarify that, for SBA disaster business loans less than $200,000, SBA is required to utilize assets other than the primary residence if those assets are available to use as collateral towards the loan. The bill is very clear though that these assets should be of equal or greater value than the amount of the loan. Also, to ensure that this is a targeted improvement, the bill includes additional language that this bill in no way requires SBA to reduce the amount or quality of collateral it seeks on these types of loans.

I note that this provision is similar to Section 204 of S. 2731, the Small Business Administration Disaster Recovery and Reform Act of 2009 that Senator Bill Nelson and I introduced last Congress. A similar provision also passed the House of Representatives twice last Congress. H.R. 3854, which included a modified collateral requirement under Section 801, passed the House on October 29, 2009, by a vote of 389-32. The provision also passed the House again on November 6, 2009, by a voice vote as Section 2 of H.R. 3743. So this provision has a history of bipartisan Congressional support. I want to especially thank Ranking Member Olympia Snowe for working with me to improve upon this previous legislation. The legislation that I am filing today is a result of discussions with both her and other stakeholders. I believe that this bill is better because of improvements that came out these productive discussions.

This bill addresses a key issue that is serving as a roadblock to business owners interested in applying for smaller SBA disaster loans. After the multiple disasters that hit the Gulf Coast, I and my staff have consistently heard from business owners, discouraged from applying for SBA disaster loans. When we have inquired further on the main reasons behind this hesitation, the top concern related to SBA requiring business owners to put up their personal home as collateral for smaller SBA business disaster loans. This requirement is understandable for large loans

between $750,000 and $2 million. However, business owners complained about this requirement being instituted for loans of $200,000 or less. I can understand their frustration. Business owners, in many cases who have just lost everything, are applying to SBA for a $150,000 loan for their business. SBA then responds by asking them to put up their $400,000 personal home as collateral when the business may have sufficient business assets available to collateralize the loan. While I also understand the need for SBA to secure the loans, make the program cost effective, and minimize risk to the taxpayer, SBA has at its disposal multiple ways to secure loans.

Furthermore, SBA has repeatedly said publicly and in testimony before my committee that it will not decline a borrower for a lack of collateral. According to a July 14, 2010 correspondence between SBA and my office, the agency notes that ``SBA is an aggressive lender and its credit thresholds are well below traditional bank standards. . . . SBA does not decline loans for insufficient collateral.'' SBA's current practice of making loans is based upon an individual/business demonstrating the ability to repay and income. The agency declines borrowers for an inability to repay the loan. In regards to collateral, SBA follows traditional lending practices that seek the ``best available collateral.'' Collateral is required for physical loans over $14,000 and Economic Injury Disaster Loans, EIDL, loans over $5,000. SBA takes real estate as collateral when it is available, but as I stated, the agency will not decline a loan for lack of collateral. Instead it requires borrowers to pledge what is available. However, in practice, SBA is requiring borrowers to put up a personal residence worth $300,000 or $400,000 for a business loan of $200,000 or less when there are other assets available for SBA.

While I do not want to see SBA tie up too much of a business' collateral, I also believe that if a business is willing and able to put up business assets towards its disaster loan, SBA should consider that first before attempting to bring in personal residences. It is unreasonable for SBA to ask business owners operating in very different business environments post-disaster to jeopardize not just their business but also their home. Loans of $200,000 or less are also the loans most likely to be repaid by the business so personal homes should be collateral of last resort in instances where a business can demonstrate the ability to repay the loan and that it has other assets.

In closing, I believe that this commonsense fix will greatly benefit businesses impacted by future disasters. This provision does not substantively change SBA's current lending practices and it will not have a significant cost. I believe that this legislation would not trigger direct spending nor would it have a significant impact on the subsidy rate for SBA disaster loans. Currently for every $1 loaned out, it costs approximately 10 cents on the dollar. Most importantly, this bill will greatly improve the SBA disaster loan programs for businesses ahead of future disasters. If a business comes to the SBA for a loan of less than $200,000 to make immediate repairs or secure working capital, they can be assured that they will not have to put up their personal home if SBA determines that the business has other assets to go towards the loan. However, if businesses seek larger loans than $200,000, then the current requirements will still apply. This ensures that very small businesses and businesses seeking smaller amounts of recovery loans are able to secure these loans without significant burdens on their personal property. For the business owners we have spoken to, this provides some badly needed clarity to one of the Federal Government's primary tools for responding to disasters.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak briefly about a very exciting opportunity and occurrence that we celebrate and honor every November and that is the opportunity to adopt children. There are so many children--Mr. President, you know, not only in Minnesota but in my State, Louisiana--the Senator from Tennessee is here, in his State of Tennessee--children all over our country and the world who are in desperate need of a family to call their own. There are millions of parents and adults who want to be parents who are waiting and hoping for an opportunity to have a family of their own. So it would make sense for us to do the very best job we can to try to build the bridges to make these unions, these really extraordinary unions possible.

That is what November is about, a month we are getting ready for Thanksgiving, in anticipation of Christmas and Hanukah, some of the other holidays that occur around this time. As families gather, our hearts and minds automatically turn to family-related events. So the great coalition that tries to help educate and encourage people on the subject has chosen November as National Adoption Month. You might know--many people go home at night and turn on their televisions. There are any number of television series by Hallmark and Home for the Holidays--lots of networks and cable companies are joining in with the idea of promoting it because it is so right. It is so natural for every child to need and want a family.

I first want to say thank you to Senators who have joined me in this effort: Senator Blumenthal, Senator Grassley, Senator Graham, Senator Blunt, Senator Johnson, Senator Levin, Senator Murray, and Senator Moran, have cosponsored this resolution recognizing and supporting the goals of National Adoption Month and in a variety of different ways, not only by passing this resolution, which we hope will be hotlined sometime in the very near future, to go through the Senate and the House, but by participating in a variety of different events at home and here in Washington to raise awareness and call attention to the needs of so many.

First of all, call attention and raise the awareness that there are in fact orphans in America, children whose parental rights have been terminated, or children who literally lost both parents and do not have an able or willing relative and are in great need of a family. The Presiding Officer knows these children as he has been very active in the issue of child welfare.

So we have several events throughout this month. One of them is National Adoption Day. That is going to take place this month, always the Saturday before Thanksgiving, where, happily, thousands of children--I think last year we had over 4,000, and since 2000, when it started, over 40,000 children have moved from foster care to a forever family on adoption day, which is quite a happy celebration. I have attended several of them myself with my local judges. There is nothing more exciting than a packed room of parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles and sometimes siblings waiting to receive these young children in some cases, and teenagers in some cases, and even young adults in some cases being adopted.

I like to say one is never too old to need a family. There are holidays that happen every year. With whom do we celebrate those? There are joys and setbacks in life that occur throughout every decade of a person's life. A person needs a family there with them. I am of the opinion that a person is never too old to be adopted. In fact, I have known individuals adopted in their twenties and thirties. I actually met a woman from California, as crazy as this might sound, who was adopted in her forties because she was reunited with a woman who used to care for her when she was very young. She grew up in foster care, amazingly became very successful, but when they were reunited, they loved each other as they had 40 years earlier and decided to become a family. It is a bonding of love through adoption.

My husband Frank and I are proud to be the parents of extraordinary children who happen to be adopted. We built our family through adoption. My husband was adopted out of an orphanage from Ireland when he was 5 years old. He still remembers the day when the matron of this little Protestant home for children came up to him and said: Ernest-- that was his name--pack your bags. Your mom and dad are here to take you home. He walked to the front of the orphanage and saw his adoptive mother and father, brother and sister, and the rest is history. He came to America, received an excellent education, and has gone on to be a wonderful citizen and, of course, a great father and a loving husband. I am so grateful for that opportunity for him.

I think about the millions of children in orphanages where no one ever knocks on their door to say your mother and father are here to take you home. No one ever comes to call for them. No one ever provides them an opportunity for loving arms and a comforting and safe place.

That is why we fight. That is why we debate. Happily, we never fight about this among ourselves because there is so much unity in the Senate and in this Congress about promoting adoption. It is one of the issues where there is virtually no partisan view.

I wish to thank my colleagues for joining me in the resolution. We want to recognize this day, the Saturday before Thanksgiving, as National Adoption Day. I thank the hundreds of cities and hundreds of organizations, hundreds of communities that are going to be celebrating National Adoption Day, where groups of children--sometimes dozens, sometimes hundreds of children--will, in fact, be adopted on National Adoption Day, and I thank those who started this day many years ago.

We want to remember November as the month. It began in 1995 under President Clinton and his then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, both of whom put such an emphasis on adoption. This is one of their initiatives that has gone on and on and has become bigger and bigger and we are excited about it.

Let me say for the record again that there are over 400,000 children in foster care in America today, and over 100,000 of them are, in fact, orphans. Their parents are either deceased or the parental rights were terminated. Many of these children have siblings who are still looking and hoping to be matched with families. The great thing people might not realize since our efforts of almost 15 years ago is that we have increased the number of adoptions in

America out of foster care from 14,000 children a year out of 100,000 15 years ago, and from 500,000 to 700,000 in foster care currently. We have reduced the number of children in foster care which overall is very good but, most importantly, we have substantially increased the number of children adopted from 14,000 to 50,000 a year. So we are moving in the right direction, but we will not rest until we have placed every child with a responsible and loving family to call their own forever.

The sad news--and I have to unfortunately have a little sad point of this speech--is that internationally the numbers are going in the wrong direction. America used to adopt about 20,000 children a year from around the world. We are the largest receiving country on Earth. Americans feel strongly, Americans of all races and backgrounds and religious affiliations feel strongly that children should be raised in families. Americans have such open hearts and room in their hearts and in their homes for children and through many of our faith-based organizations have stepped up to adopt. Unfortunately, policies within our own executive branch of government and decisions that are being made are constricting the number of children who are eligible for adoption or who are being adopted by Americans, and that number has fallen dramatically, unfortunately, from about 20,000 children down to 9,000 children. I am going to redouble my efforts every year to find the problem areas and identify them, whether something has to be changed legislatively or whether some additional funding can be found to increase efforts not just by the Federal Government but States and local governments and nonprofits. We are going to turn the corner and accelerate this situation.

Let me conclude by showing some wonderful examples of families who have stepped up. First, this is the Morrison family. Fran is from Louisiana. She has fostered over 22 children. She is a professional. This is what she does in her professional life. She has fostered 22 children. But these five she has adopted out of the dozens of children whom she has fostered. This one little baby, the latest one whom she adopted, has a very special need. He was shaken as an infant. He was born completely healthy, but because an adult lost their temper and didn't know what to do--adults sometimes may shake infants because they are angry, because children cry when they are hungry or they are cold or they are tired, and sometimes adults don't like to hear that crying. Sometimes babies get shaken or thrown against walls, and that is what happened to this little child. This child is seriously disabled but has now been adopted by Fran Morrison, and she says she has been blessed. The Lord led her to become a foster parent and then, just one step at a time, she became an adoptive mom. As we can see, she has her hands very full, but she has a great heart and she, similar to so many other Americans, is trying to make a way for these children and give them a place.

The next family is the Roberts family. Former foster youth Marchelle Roberts was one of my interns in my office just last year, so this is such a personal and touching story. She was a former participant in our foster youth intern program. Her parent is Lisa Roberts from Camden, NJ. She is adopted. Marchelle is now 22 years old and is attending Temple University studying broadcast journalism. Besides Marchelle, her mother has adopted four other children out of foster care. What an extraordinary family, built by a mom who just had a great heart, had the will and the opportunity to adopt these four beautiful girls, and they are now a wonderful family, truly loving the children to help them succeed in a world they were born into that had a very sad beginning but a very happy ending.

The third family I wish to share with my colleagues is the Johnson family. This is Senator Thune's 2012 Angel. The parents are Ryan and Amber Johnson from Sioux Falls, SD. Two boys were adopted out of foster care. They have one biological child, a little girl. These two little boys were adopted out of foster care. What a beautiful family and what a way to build a family. That is what I am saying; that I wish we could eliminate every barrier. There are cultural barriers. There are financial barriers. There are legal barriers. If we could just eliminate those barriers and let Americans do what they do best, which is to love children, we would be a lot better off. So this is a beautiful family from Sioux Falls, SD.

Our next family is the Duhon family. The parents, Troy and Tracy Duhon, are from New Orleans. I know this family well and I am very proud of them. Their little adopted child Annahstasia Grace was born in China last year. They have three biological children, but they traveled to China just last month to pick up this little baby girl. They have waited for her for quite some time. We are very grateful that the Chinese Government has been cooperative. China is placing more children domestically, which is good, because many years ago they didn't have any process for domestic adoption. Of course, with their one-child policy, there were literally millions of children in orphanages, many little girls because they weren't as valued as little boys. But now that is changing. China is doing more domestic adoptions, but there are still children who need to have loving parents and many of them are finding them in the United States.

Then, finally, the last family is Jake and Amy Glover from Hays, KS. They have four adopted children, three from Haiti and one from China. What a cute holiday card this is going to be for all their friends who will receive it. Since adopting three children from Haiti, the Glovers are committed to raising awareness about the many daily challenges faced by the Haitians postearthquake. So not only did these individuals turn out to be great parents for these children, but they also--I know because I talk to so many of them--help these children understand and appreciate and respect the culture from which they came, and it builds awareness in America about the greatness of our whole planet. Of course, we are proud of America, but there are many other countries where these children come from, and I know the adoptive parents are very respectful of the sending countries.

So on behalf of the children who are still waiting, I hope people who have heard this can respond in some way. There are many opportunities for people to reach out to our national organizations, nonprofits, churches in communities, and people can always go to our Web site and we have some additional information about how to connect if people are thinking about how to adopt or people who want to support the work of adoption and preservation of families such as these.

Again, I urge my colleagues to pass S. Res. 595 as quickly as possible. I thank those colleagues who have joined with me in cosponsoring this. We wish everybody a great day on Saturday for National Adoption Day, and we look forward to the continued work to promote laws and policies that help every child find a forever family.

Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Whitney Rice be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 345 and 519; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 516, S. 1440.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to and that the Alexander amendment at the desk be agreed to.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this measure and ask that the bill be read for a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 6570, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.