Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise at this moment, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, outraged at the implication that we in the Senate have not done enough to investigate what has happened in Benghazi; that we have not investigated it thoroughly; that we have not looked at the details, have not analyzed the information-- classified and unclassified--that has come before us.

The committee has held four hearings--four--on the attack on Special Mission Benghazi. The very first hearing I chaired in January was on this topic with Secretary Clinton. In fact, we postponed the nomination hearing of Senator Kerry so that Secretary Clinton could come before us and explain what happened and why, despite her medical condition at the time.

Let's make that very clear. One of the very first things we did, despite a pending nomination of a new Secretary, and the sitting Secretary's medical concerns, was to hold a hearing on this topic and air the facts. Prior to that, Chairman Kerry held a hearing of the committee on December 20 on the events that transpired in Benghazi with Deputy Secretaries Burns and Nides. There were also two classified briefings in December specifically on the circumstances surrounding the attack. The December 13 briefing included a video of the attack with high level officials from State, the Joint Staff, Defense Department, the FBI, and the intelligence community. They included Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management at State; Matthew Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Maj. Gen. Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations at the Joint Staff; Gary Reid, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict; Jenny Ley, Deputy Assistant Director at the

Mr. President, I rise at this moment, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, outraged at the implication that we in the Senate have not done enough to investigate what has happened in Benghazi; that we have not investigated it thoroughly; that we have not looked at the details, have not analyzed the information-- classified and unclassified--that has come before us.

The committee has held four hearings--four--on the attack on Special Mission Benghazi. The very first hearing I chaired in January was on this topic with Secretary Clinton. In fact, we postponed the nomination hearing of Senator Kerry so that Secretary Clinton could come before us and explain what happened and why, despite her medical condition at the time.

Let's make that very clear. One of the very first things we did, despite a pending nomination of a new Secretary, and the sitting Secretary's medical concerns, was to hold a hearing on this topic and air the facts. Prior to that, Chairman Kerry held a hearing of the committee on December 20 on the events that transpired in Benghazi with Deputy Secretaries Burns and Nides. There were also two classified briefings in December specifically on the circumstances surrounding the attack. The December 13 briefing included a video of the attack with high level officials from State, the Joint Staff, Defense Department, the FBI, and the intelligence community. They included Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management at State; Matthew Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Maj. Gen. Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations at the Joint Staff; Gary Reid, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict; Jenny Ley, Deputy Assistant Director at the

I thank the chairman for her remarks. If I may, I would like to further clarify the language and purpose of section 3004. Post- Sandy, there is an acute need for an assessment of the northeast region's storm-protection infrastructure needs. Is it correct that section 3004 gives the Corps of Engineers the power to conduct feasibility studies on specific projects?

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish to join with my distinguished colleagues in our collective call for a greater engagement. I start off, as I always do in many years in Congress between the House and the Senate, with two questions: What is in the national interests of the United States? What is in the national security interests of the United States? The answer to those two questions is, in essence, how I determine my views, my advocacy, my votes, and the policies I want to pursue.

There are vital U.S. interests engaged in Syria. First, of course, there is a humanitarian crisis, probably the most significant humanitarian crisis at this moment--70,000 dead and climbing, 4 million displaced. That is, of course, an urgent call. Beyond that we have large chemical weapon stockpiles that potentially can fall into the wrong hands. Some have, by a whole host of public reports, already been used against the Syrian people. Unless you believe that somehow the rebels have in their possession chemical weapons, then this largely has to be from Asad. He has used them. I think once you use them, you are willing to use them even in greater quantities. That is a real concern.

The Syrian State could collapse. That would leave a safe heaven for terrorists, constituting a new threat to the region. You already have al-Qaida affiliated al-Nusra, you have Hezbollah, you have the Iranian Guard. You have the opportunity for a safe heaven for terrorists constituting a new threat to the region with broader implications for our own security.

The refugee crisis and sectarian violence spread instability throughout the region. The King of Jordan was here 2 weeks ago and sat with our committee. He made it very clear, his population has already increased by 20 percent. At the rate it is going, the population of Jordan could double. That is not sustainable for the kingdom. This is one of the countries that has been one of our most significant and faithful allies, and a constructive ally in the region. We cannot afford for that ally to ultimately find itself in a position in which it could very well collapse. We look at all of that.

Finally, there could be no more strategic setback to Iran--which this body has spoken collectively and in a bipartisan united fashion to stop its march toward nuclear weapons--than to have the Asad regime collapse. That would be a tremendous setback to Iran and would cause a disruption in the terror pipeline between Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

These are just some of the vital national security interests of the United States in changing the tide. Under the present set of circumstances, Asad believes he is winning. For so long, as he believes he is winning, he will continue the course he is on. There has to be a change in the tipping point.

After 2 years I believe there are those in the opposition--rebels we can and have thoroughly vetted--we can assist in trying to change that tipping point. If you have a monopoly on air power and on artillery, then the reality is you will not see a change on the ground.

So the legislation I have introduced and am working with colleagues on begins to move us in a different direction. It is to seek to arm thoroughly vetted elements of the Syrian opposition so we can change the tipping point. It is to, of course, continue to provide humanitarian assistance and at the same time work for the assistance of a transition fund to help those rebels that are already controlling parts of the civilian population to help them administrate there and prepare for the future.

The key point is unless we change the dynamics on the ground, we will not have a change in the regime. So long as the regime can continue to bomb its citizens indiscriminately--and if the reports, as we have seen from various countries, including our own, suggest that Asad has used chemical weapons against his own citizens--that is only an invitation to allow him to continue to do it unless we act.

I am willing to consider other options. I know my colleague, Senator McCain, very distinguished in this field, has suggested others. I am willing to consider those as well. But I think, finally, we strengthen the hand of the administration and Secretary Kerry. We all want to see a politically, diplomatically achieved solution. But in the absence of changing the calculus not only of Asad but of his supporters who have propped him up, unless they believe he will fall, I am not sure we have changed the calculus for the political opportunity to take place and the diplomacy to be effective.

I think these efforts strengthen the hand of the administration, create a parallel track that if diplomacy fails, we will have an opportunity to pursue our vital national interests and security interests, end the humanitarian tragedy, and create the type of stability we want to see in the region. I appreciate my colleague bringing us together on the floor of the Senate. I look forward to continuing to work with him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 802, which I understand will be offered to the WRDA bill by my colleague from Louisiana Senator Landrieu which would stop flood insurance premiums from skyrocketing until FEMA completes its study on the affordability of premiums of the National Flood Insurance Program.

As everyone here knows, my home State of New Jersey was at the epicenter of Superstorm Sandy which destroyed thousands of homes, left millions without power, and caused billions of dollars in damage. But despite the devastation, the people of New Jersey didn't give up. They began rebuilding, and we showed the country that ``Jersey Tough'' isn't just a slogan.

But even as we slowly recover from the worst natural disaster in our State's history, a manmade disaster is looming in the distance, jeopardizing our recovery. The combination of updated flood maps and the phaseout of premium subsidies for the National Flood Insurance Program threaten to force victims out of their homes and destroy entire communities.

It is like a triple whammy. We have the consequences of Superstorm Sandy, which devastated homes, so they have to rebuild. Many times, that insurance didn't rise to the level of the cost of rebuilding. Secondly, and as a result of flood maps that came in after the storm, there are now requirements for new elevations. Thirdly, the premiums are going to skyrocket because the subsidies go down. So we have a triple whammy.

Now, many homeowners are going to be forced to pay premiums that are several times higher than their current policy. Those who cannot afford the higher premiums will either be forced to sell or abandon their homes. This, in turn, will drive down property values and local revenues at the worst possible time--when we are doing everything we can to bring communities back to life after the storm.

I have heard from countless New Jerseyans. Many who are facing this

predicament have come to me in tears. These are hard-working middle- class families who have played by the rules, purchased flood insurance responsibly, and now are being priced out of the only home in which they have ever lived. This amendment would delay these potentially devastating changes until FEMA completes its study on premium affordability.

This study is the result of a requirement I authored in the flood insurance bill last year because I was concerned that premiums could become unaffordable for too many families. Of course, at that time the challenge was made by many of our colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, who said: Well, we will let the flood insurance program die unless it can be self-sufficient.

Given the choice between having no flood insurance program--that, therefore, would mean no homeowner would have any insurance available to them, and, of course, it dramatically reduces the value of the home if you cannot get flood insurance and you are in a flood plain--or having a flood insurance program under the conditions our colleagues insisted on, there was a need to have a flood insurance program. But because I knew that had some potential rate shock to individuals, the study I required and sought and achieved in the flood insurance bill last year was because of this concern of unaffordability for too many families. That was even before Superstorm Sandy struck.

While my friends on the other side of the aisle protested my efforts to provide assistance to help low- and middle-income families afford insurance, I was able to include a requirement that FEMA conduct this study on affordability. Well, it has been 10 months since we passed the reauthorization, and there is still no study.

Unfortunately, my concerns about premiums becoming unaffordable have already come true for many New Jersey homeowners. Until FEMA does its job and provides options, according to the law, to improve affordability, the people of New Jersey should not have to face these skyrocketing premiums at a time they are, in essence, getting a triple whammy: They lost their homes or their homes are dramatically uninhabitable, they have to rebuild--in many cases, because of new flood maps, they will have to elevate--and they will have to pay incredibly higher premiums. That is simply a devastation that should not take place.

We all remember the devastation that happened in New Jersey in late October and the way the country came together to help the victims. Last week we marked the 6-month anniversary of Sandy, and the work is far from over. We still have too many people out of their homes and too many people who are afraid of losing their homes.

New Jersey families already suffered from a natural disaster. The next disaster should not be a manmade one. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise as a parent, as a father, as an American who saw the horror of Newtown.

Too many times I have come to this Senate floor to say I offer my thoughts and prayers to the parents of the victims of an assault weapon attack. Too many times. Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Newtown. How many times will we have to offer our thoughts and prayers to the victims of gun violence?

I have two beautiful children, Alicia and Rob, and they are the most important and cherished people in my life. I don't know what I would do if anything happened to either one of them. So I am here for them and for the children they may have one day and for every child in Newtown and across America whose small voice has been silenced by a gun.

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that each and every Member of the Senate felt a loss that day just 4 months ago. Here we are, 4 months later, trying to do something--but still not enough--for those children, for

those families, for all the families who have suffered the devastation of a shooter with the ability and the will to kill innocent people--as many as an assault weapon can kill as quickly as it can fire--a shooter with a desire to get off as many rounds in as short a time as possible.

In my view, we are already too armed. We are by far the most armed Nation in the world. There are more guns in America--almost 90 per 100 residents--than in any other nation. Do you know there are five federally licensed gun dealers in America for every McDonald's? Think about it. Think about how many times you see a McDonald's. Well, imagine five times as many gun dealers. There are about 310 million guns in America. But consider that those 310 million guns are owned by only about 40 percent of American households.

Now we are in the midst of a debate in which some are arguing that not only should we not ban assault weapons, but we should force every State to allow people to carry concealed weapons.

How does that help reduce gun violence? How are we reducing gun violence if we allow people to carry concealed weapons across State lines; if we allow someone in Florida or Virginia to carry their gun to New York City and Times Square or my home State of New Jersey? Is that the legacy we want to leave the children and families of Newtown?

I strongly oppose any amendment that would allow reciprocity for concealed weapons. Yet even as we skirt the real issues, banning the weapons and the ammunition devices that have caused our Nation so much heartbreak, we would have those who see this as an opportunity to weaken gun laws; those who see this as a way to push, from my view, a radical agenda and put more firearms into the hands of those who don't deserve them.

My home State of New Jersey has a gun control regime specifically tailored to a densely populated State. Our State requires affirmative permission to buy a firearm. But we leave that decision to those who know the State best in terms of its security--the State Police. They conduct a thorough background check, even more thorough than the Federal background check, and then the police sign off and give a purchaser a card to buy a firearm.

Of course we have commonsense safeguards to ensure the Second Amendment is not violated, including appeal rights. But under an amendment offered by one of my colleagues, soon New Jersey's carefully constructed firearms law, if this amendment were to be adopted, would be eviscerated. Soon New Jersey's law would only be as good as the least restrictive States. This amendment, in essence, is mandatory concealed carry reciprocity. Not the current type of concealed carry reciprocity where States might voluntarily enter into agreements to allow their permits to be used in another State. No. This amendment forces States to accept other States' concealed carry permits.

I guess so much for the States rights advocates that I have listened to here so many times.

At least 28 States grant concealed carry permits to those convicted of stalking, and at least 7 States grant concealed carry permits to those convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery. At least 12 do not require any firearms safety training before the issuance of a concealed carry permit. Florida and Utah do not even require residency for a concealed carry permit. Yet this amendment would force States such as New Jersey to accept these permits even if the out-of-State concealed carry permit owner would not be eligible to simply possess a gun under our laws, much less carry.

This amendment would turn our positive discussion on how to best protect our children into another feather in the cap of the NRA and its gun manufacturers, another example for it to show how it has a stranglehold on this national discussion. And, in my view, this is just asking for more gun violence, not ending it. Not banning assault weapons is asking for more gun violence. Allowing larger clips with more firepower does nothing to end the violence. It is not about hunting. If you need 100 rounds to hunt a deer, you are in sad shape.

Do we honestly think it makes sense to allow someone without a mandatory background check to buy an assault weapon that can fire up to 13 rounds a second with something called a bump fire stock? Should we not even be considering making weapons that can fire 13 rounds a second legal on the streets of America?

Bang. That is one round fired. It took me 4 seconds to say those five words. In those 4 seconds, if I had an assault weapon, I could have gotten 52 rounds--52 bullets--fired in the time it took me to say five words. There is no need for that kind of firepower on the streets of America. There is no need for the same weapons of that sort to be on the streets of Newark, NJ, or Newtown, CT, as they are in Baghdad, Kabul.

Any attempt that uses the Second Amendment as an excuse to allow that type of firepower on the streets without some common sense applied to it is not solving a problem, it is creating one.

I will support efforts during this debate to go even further in keeping mass slaughter weapons out of the hands of criminals. I do not believe assault weapons--some of them having names such as ``Street Sweeper''--are about anything other than mass killing. I strongly believe in banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips that allow a deranged individual to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. There is simply no rationale for having these weapons on our streets--unless your intent is to inflict terror and destruction and mass casualties.

In a nation where there are already 310 million guns and far too few regulations as to who owns and carries them, I believe we have a responsibility to take these assault weapons off the street. I understand that not everyone shares that view, but the one thing I cannot understand is how someone can argue against something as simple and as basic as requiring a background check before putting a deadly weapon in a person's hand.

We owe it to the American people. We owe it to the children of Newtown, to the families who are still trying to pick up the pieces from that tragic day. We owe it to the family of the 6-year-old boy from Toms River who was shot recently by a 4-year-old neighbor with a .22 caliber rifle that was in the house. He did not survive the wounds. We owe it to every victim of gun violence to send a message that America will no longer be the most armed Nation in the world without at least having commonsense gun safety regulations.

Who among us would be content with the counsel of patience and delay when we lose a neighbor or lose a loved one to the type of violence we could have prevented by a vote in the Senate today? It is time for some profiles in courage, and I believe that in the men and women of the Senate there exists that opportunity and that moment for a profile in courage to stand up for what is right. That is the opportunity that is presented to us today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

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 April 17, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled ``The Future of Passenger Rail: What's Next for the Northeast Corridor?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2014.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 432 Russell Senate Office building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Proposed FY2014 Small Business Administration Budget.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Helping Homeowners Harmed by Foreclosures: Ensuring Accountability and Transparency in Foreclosure Reviews, Part

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 17, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 6 minutes.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the confirmation of Judge Patty Shwartz to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a nomination which has finally come to the floor, and the time has come to confirm Judge Shwartz. I express my full support and urge my colleagues to do the same. I am happy we were able to work out the vote on this nominee without a cloture vote, which is incredibly important.

I want to refer to my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who mentioned a home State Senator--who happens to be me--and to clarify some issues.

I have always taken the role of advice and consent for judicial nominations very seriously, as I am sure we all do. Appointments to the Federal bench are lifetime appointments, and the circuit court is often the last stop before the U.S. Supreme Court. That makes that responsibility even greater. Very few Americans, if they appeal, get past the circuit court to Supreme Court consideration.

We know the process can be long and difficult; sometimes overly partisan on both sides based on legitimate concerns and personal beliefs. In the end we always look to confirm the best and most qualified individuals. We conduct a thorough review of the nominees, their understanding of the law, their intellect, their analytical thinking and reasoning, and we make our decisions--and I have made mine--about the nominee.

I had the opportunity on more than one occasion to discuss with the judge issues that I believe reflect the high standards to which a nominee should always be held. There is no understanding between this nominee and me as to how she would rule in any given set of circumstances. There was a suggestion about what the law is today in both those instances. I am sure the judge simply did not recall the specifics of that at the time of the hearing but was forthright in coming back and saying: Yes, there were two cases. The simple discussion of what is a Supreme Court decision is, in my mind, not only appropriate, but at a circuit court level is more than desirable.

In the totality of our discussions Judge Shwartz indicated to me the type of intellectual rigor, the knowledge that in fact guarantees to me that she deserves the lifetime appointment to which I expect the Senate will confirm her. The fact that I come to the floor today in full support of her confirmation speaks not only to her qualifications but to her character and to her judicial temperament and suitability to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Aristotle said: ``Character may be called the most effective means of persuasion.''

I can say that, having spent time meeting with Judge Shwartz, I am absolutely persuaded that she is a person of character and meets the highest standards for any nominee.

I urge my colleagues to unanimously confirm this highly qualified woman who, I know, will serve honorably and serve well.

Judge Patty Shwartz is a proud New Jerseyan. She has been a magistrate judge for the District of New Jersey since 2003.

Originally from Paterson, she graduated from Rutgers as a Henry Rutgers Scholar with the highest honors.

After college, Judge Shwartz went to the University of Pennsylvania Law School, edited the law review, and was named Outstanding Woman Law Graduate.

She has been an associate in Philadelphia at Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, clerked for the Honorable Harold A. Ackerman of the District Court for the District of New Jersey, and, in 1989 joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey.

She rose to the position of deputy chief of the criminal division and then to chief of the criminal division serving as the Executive Assistant United States Attorney.

She has handled over 4,000 civil and criminal cases, and, since 2009, she has been an adjunct professor at Fordham University School of Law.

She is on the advisory board for the Association of the Federal Bar of the State of New Jersey, the Board of Advisors for the Historical Society of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the Board of Directors of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association, where she represents the Third Circuit.

She is clearly highly qualified--a woman of distinction who deserves confirmation.

If experience, character, and temperament are the most persuasive weapons in a judicial nominee's arsenal, then Judge Shwartz comes before this chamber very well-armed.

Let me say to my colleagues who may not have had the opportunity to look as closely at this nominee's record as I have, in making my judgment I have had the benefit of invaluable advice and counsel from many members of the Federal bar whose opinions I sought. They are both Democrats and Republicans, and they affirmed what I subsequently discovered for myself in discussions with her; that there is not a single reason to vote no on this nomination.

I urge my colleagues to send a message that although the process can be long and fraught with conflicting opinions, in the end it bends toward the best and brightest, and Judge Patty Shwartz is proof of it.

She has strong bipartisan support not only from both the Senators from New Jersey but also our Governor Chris Christie. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm Judge Patty Shwartz to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized to engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Washington, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Murray.

I want to commend the chairman's tireless efforts on this budget resolution. She has done the yeomen's work in crafting a document that reflects the values of our caucus in a balanced and pragmatic way. This stands in sharp contrast to the polarizing and ideologically driven budget our friends in the House passed earlier this week. As you know I have introduced legislation in the last three Congresses to create what I call the ``children's budget.'' This bill would require that the executive branch agencies include in their annual budget request to Congress a detailed analysis on children's programs. This analysis would include a breakdown of the appropriations, spending levels, and obligational authority and outlays for each program specifically targeted towards children or that serve children as a major component of their mission. Importantly, this would include an analysis not only of the fiscal year for which the budget request is being made, but also the previous and current fiscal years, to provide the Budget Committees and the Appropriations Committees with a comprehensive look at how funding is affecting the youngest Americans.

I have filed an amendment to this concurrent resolution that seeks to address this very issue by encouraging the Appropriations Committees to request the analysis of children's programs contingent on the agencies' funding. However, I understand through conversations with the Senate Parliamentarian and others that indicate such an amendment might not comport with the strict requirements and procedures of a budget resolution. Is this the chairman's understanding as well?

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 651.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is a side-by-side to Senator Coburn's amendment, and while I stand in strong opposition to the underlying amendment of Senator Coburn, I do recognize the need for a comprehensive examination to the current Medicare wage index system. HHS and MedPAC and others have issued detailed reports highlighting that very fact, showing that the current system is full of special add- ons, reclassifications, and other provisions that distort the overall system.

In essence, that amendment would create such harm in so many hospitals across this Nation from Alaska to New Hampshire, to Nevada, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Rhode Island, just

to mention a few. Our effort is to look at this comprehensively. We need to look at the entire Medicare hospital wage index system. We should not pick out one small provision that does so much harm to so many hospitals across the country instead of addressing the system as a whole.

I am joined in this with Senator Warren, Senator Cowan, and Senator Lautenberg, among others, and I urge my colleagues to support the side- by-side amendment so we can address this in a comprehensive and responsible way.

Mr. President, is my amendment called up, No. 705?

Mr. President, this side-by-side with Senator Sessions is very straightforward. It restates current law. Let me repeat that. It restates current law, which already explicitly excludes undocumented immigrants who are in this country from obtaining benefits such as tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies when obtaining health insurance coverage.

We debated this policy at length during health care reform, and this exemption was included in the final bill to address concerns of some of our Republican colleagues that undocumented immigrants would somehow be able to

receive the benefits we included in the law. That is why we specifically and explicitly excluded them from being able to gain this type of coverage.

Finally, addressing the issues of immigrant families is currently being done in a bipartisan fashion. The last thing we need to do in this budget process is to try to muck that up.

This is not a great way to do your outreach to the Hispanic and immigrant community. I urge our colleagues just to stay with present law. Let's restate it once again, support our amendment, and reject the Sessions amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, nothing changes present law, and nothing is contemplated to change--which I think the Group of 8 wouldn't mind me saying--what the Senator is concerned about in our negotiations. It would have to come before this body before, in fact, it could be changed.

The current law is very clear. They do not have access to any of the benefits that the Senator is worried about because present law prohibits an undocumented immigrant from having access to those benefits. That is why this is unnecessary. It is just the need of some to have an immigration amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment would allow for better coordination of our flood mitigation programs to meet the unmet needs of victims of disaster.

As homeowners along the Jersey Shore seek to recover from Superstorm Sandy, they are not just faced with the task of rebuilding, they also have to comply with new, incredibly costly elevation requirements. Seniors who have lived in their modest homes their entire lives now face tens of thousands of dollars in unanticipated costs, all in addition to the costs of rebuilding. And while there are Federal programs available to help coordination among these programs, it is incredibly poor and leads to a lot of victims never being helped. For example, there are hazard mitigation grants available, but homeowners will lose eligibility if they begin work before their application was approved, even if they complied with every other rule and regulation.

My amendment would allow coordination and fine tuning of these mitigation programs so they operate more effectively and meet the unmet needs of disaster victims. The amendment would not cost any money, nor would it add another penny to the deficit. It just encourages the use of current programs in a more wise and coordinated fashion.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Reserving the right to object, does the Senator have foreign affairs amendments there?

Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I do want our colleagues to understand that some of these amendments the chairwoman just asked to be put in order are incredibly fundamental important foreign policy issues that you do not do at 3 in the morning and change the dynamics of the Middle East, and change the dynamics of our national security and interests in international organizations.

That is what some of these amendments will do. You do not do it in a budget process, you do it through regular order in a committee that ultimately can hear both sides as we have succeeded so far this session in a very bipartisan way. So I will not object because of the chairwoman's effort to get us to a conclusion. But I will be urging all of our colleagues to oppose all of those amendments because this is foreign policy on the fly. It is dangerous. We send very important messages when we cast votes in certain ways that can affect the balance of stability in the Middle East, that can affect our relationships across the world, that can affect our effectiveness in institutions that we need at the end of the day to promote our national security, our national interests.

Mr. President, that money the Senator referred to was money that was already existing and it was at a critical time.

The United States and Egypt have a longstanding security relationship that is vital to the stability of the Middle East and the security of the region. Our aid to Egypt is tied directly to the Camp David Accord which has acted to stabilize the Middle East and has helped to serve America and Israel's security for the past 35 years. It is vital and it can't be put at risk.

We also have significant interests in Egypt in countering terrorism, addressing the deteriorating security in the Sinai, and maintaining preferential access to the Suez Canal.

We cannot give the Egyptian leaders a blank check, but we also cannot have a collapse of the Egyptian economy which Israel would face the immediate consequences of.

This is the type of amendment that does not consider the checks and balances necessary and the complexities of the issue, which we will handle in the committee.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. President, no one--no one--in this body supports forced abortions. No one. However, the United Nations has no authority to control the acts of any individual nation.

Instead of punishing the country that is carrying out the bad policy, this amendment would go after an entity that has no control over the policy and all the while negatively impacting our national interests because it takes away all funding to the United Nations if such a member country is engaged in such acts. It would impact funding for peacekeeping operations in the Golan Heights, in Darfur, in Congo; funding for Syrian refugees, which now exceeds 1 million and is threatening the political and economic instability of Jordan and Lebanon; funding to the International Atomic Energy Agency that we need to go after Iran.

These are all reasons this amendment should be voted against.

Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about the continuing unrest in Tibet and the tragic trend of Tibetan self- immolations. Since February 2009, more than 100 Tibetans have set themselves on fire. Many of the self-immolators have called out for the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet and for China to acknowledge the basic human dignity of the Tibetan people.

Like so many others, I wish that Tibetans would not choose self- immolations, a horrific act, as a method of protest. I hope Tibetans will find other ways to express their grievances and despair and halt these self-destructive acts. At the same time, we must understand that these sorts of acts are indicative of the deep sense of frustration felt by the Tibetan people. This is not a conspiracy of ``foreign forces'' but indicative of the deep sense of hopelessness of a people denied their basic dignity.

Under the Chinese Constitution, ``All ethnic groups in the People's Republic of China are equal. The state protects the lawful rights and interests of the minority nationalities and upholds and develops the relationship of equality, unity and mutual assistance among all of China's nationalities. Discrimination against and oppression of any nationality are prohibited. . . .''

Yet Tibet today is one of the most repressed and closed societies in the world, where merely talking on the phone can land you in jail. Support for the Dalai Lama can be prosecuted as an offense against the State. Tibetans are treated as second class citizens; their travel within and outside of Tibetan areas is highly restricted. Foreign diplomats and journalists are routinely denied access.

The American people and Congress have demonstrated an abiding interest in the culture, religion, and people of Tibet, as well as a deep respect for His Holiness the Dalai Lama. We see Tibet as an issue of fundamental justice and fairness, where the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people, as embodied in the PRC's own constitution, are not being respected; where their culture is being eroded; and where their land is being exploited.

So I believe that responsibility falls to us to help the Tibetan people in their efforts to preserve their culture and identity and have a say in their own affairs and to be able to exercise genuine autonomy within the PRC.

Let me offer some thoughts on how Congress can help.

First, we should continue to fund the important programs that help Tibetan communities, both in exile and on the Tibetan plateau. While these provide tangible humanitarian results, they also send a critical signal to the aggrieved Tibetan population that the United States hears their plea.

One measure with which I am familiar is the Tibetan language broadcasts of Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America. I cannot overstate the importance of these efforts to provide perhaps the only independent source of news to Tibetans who struggle under the heavy censorship regime.

Second, we should embrace the statement last fall by U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay on Tibet. She stated that ``social stability in Tibet will never be achieved through heavy security measures and suppression of human rights.'' She called on Chinese authorities to adopt the recommendations of various U.N. bodies and to allow access to Tibet by independent international observers and media members, noting 12 outstanding requests for official visits to China by U.N. Special Rapporteurs on various human rights issues.

Third, the State Department should continue to insist on access to Tibet by its personnel. We need independent and credible reporting on the true situation on the ground, and the Department should work with China to take steps to see that the principle of reciprocity is respected.

Fourth, I encourage the State Department and other government agencies to join in dialogue with China and with others in the region to address the deeper strategic aspects of the Tibet issue. Instability in Tibet is a factor in the broader question of social stability in the entire PRC. Peaceful resolution of the Tibet issue could go a long way in demonstrating to the world that China is indeed a responsible and constructive member of the community of nations. In turn, Beijing's growing influence in the Himalayan belt, especially Nepal, should be assessed in a broader dialogue with other nations in the region.

Likewise, the United States should look for constructive ways to engage China on the issue of water security, given that Tibet's rivers provide the livelihood for hundreds of millions of people downstream in South and Southeast Asia. Chinese diversion of these rivers through constructing dams could become a source of conflict in the region.

Mr. President, I close by paraphrasing an oft-uttered phrase by the Dalai Lama. He says that those who raise their voices of concern for Tibet do so not because they are pro-Tibet or anti-Chinese. They do so because they are pro-justice. I second this remark and look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, and with China, to promote a durable resolution to the Tibet problem.

Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations for the 113th Congress adopted by the Committee on February 13, 2013.

Madam President, I rise to speak to the nomination of Senator Kerry to be the next Secretary of State.

It has been more than 100 years since a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was directly nominated to be the Secretary of State. The last was Senator John Sherman of Ohio, who was selected to serve as Secretary of State to President McKinley. It is important to note that this historical fact exists because Senator Kerry's path isn't one commonly taken but one that is earned by a select few, and he has earned this opportunity.

From the first time John testified before Chairman Fulbright as a young returning Vietnam war hero in 1971 to the day the President announced his nomination as Secretary of State, he has invested himself in all of his endeavors, always looking for the truth, for answers, uncovering the facts, hearing all the evidence, and then publicly speaking truth to power based solely on what was best for this Nation. I know he will carry those leadership traits with him into his new position, and I can think of no one better prepared to take on the challenges of this position.

As a Senator, as a member of this committee, and as a chairman, John has already built strong relationships with leaders across the world, which will allow him to step seamlessly into the role of Secretary of State. Senator Kerry will need no introduction to the world's political and military leaders and will begin day one fully conversant not only with the intricacies of U.S. foreign policy but with the understanding of the nuanced approach necessary to effectively interact on a multinational stage.

When Vice President Biden was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he said on more than one occasion that ``good international relationships are always predicated on strong interpersonal relationships.'' John Kerry understands there is no substitute for strong interpersonal relationships, whether in Senate politics or international diplomacy. Secretary of State is not a desk job. It requires constant personal interactions in the furtherance of American foreign policy.

During his 30 years in public life and more than 25 years in the Senate, Senator Kerry has championed many issues. Earlier today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee favorably reported his nomination to the Senate unanimously and presented Senator Kerry with an honorary resolution highlighting a few of his many accomplishments.

Amongst his accomplishments are the partnership he formed with Senator John McCain that led to an effort to investigate the fate of American soldiers unaccounted for in Vietnam and normalize relations with a former enemy--which is, in essence, Vietnam; his leadership of difficult, sensitive, and comprehensive investigations in the Senate on everything from the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and illegal money laundering, to the Noriega regime in Panama which is well known; advocating for democratic elections in the Philippines and serving with Senator Lugar as part of a Senate delegation that uncovered the fraud that led to the ouster of President Ferdinand Marcos; working with the Cambodian Government and the United Nations to facilitate the creation of the genocide tribunal in Cambodia to prosecute key members of the Khmer Rouge; advocating for programs that help secure nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons stockpiles and materials so they don't fall into the hands of hostile states or terrorists; and leading the Senate to provide its advice and consent to ratification of the New START treaty with Russia.

During the Arab spring, Senator Kerry supported a no-fly zone over Libya, which helped to save thousands of civilians from being massacred, and he was a voice of courage and conscience in calling for President Hosni Mubarak to step aside and begin an orderly and peaceful transition to a democratic political system in Egypt.

John has been a tireless advocate for the cause of peace in the Sudan and South Sudan and played an instrumental role in the successful referendum in 2011.

John is well known for his bipartisan work with former majority leader Bill Frist on comprehensive HIV/AIDS legislation that laid the foundation for

the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a program that provides lifesaving treatment for people with HIV/AIDS and supports broad prevention efforts that save lives every day.

Many of you know that John is a tireless and most convincing advocate for addressing global climate change and supporting the transition to a clean energy future. As chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, he convened eight major hearings and roundtables on climate change and energy security, underscoring their connection to global stability, economic competitiveness, and America's national security.

In his new role, his portfolio will be greatly expanded as he represents the interests of the Nation, from securing our Embassies and protecting our overseas personnel to promoting commerce, enhancing cross-cultural ties, and keeping America secure through cooperation where possible and isolation where necessary, as in the cases of Iran and North Korea.

Whatever the challenges we will face as a nation, in my view, the State Department could not be in better hands. When it comes to America's role in world affairs, I know we all agree that it is critical that the United States remain fully engaged, that we project not only the power of our military strength when necessary but the wisdom of our democratic ideas. I have no doubt that Senator Kerry will rise to meet these challenges as he has so consistently in his many years of service to his State and this country.

I see the distinguished ranking member on the committee, Senator Corker, whom I look forward to working with as we move forward in the days ahead.

I think all Members will say that even when they did not agree with Chairman Kerry on a given issue, they always felt he had an open ear, an open door, an opportunity for full debate, an effort to seek the common ground, particularly in U.S. foreign policy. I believe those traits are going to serve him extraordinarily well in his role as Secretary of State as he deals with the Senate and the House of Representatives as part of promoting U.S. foreign policy in a way that brings us as cohesively together as we can to promote the national interests and securities of the United States.

I look forward at the end of this time period to a strong confirmation vote to send a message to the world that this is our Secretary of State, and he speaks for America on behalf of the Obama administration and the people of the United States.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent--it has been agreed to by the Republican side as well--that any time spent during debate time in a quorum call be equally charged against both sides.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding we are coming to the end of the time on this debate--or consideration, I should say. There has really been no debate. I think that speaks to Senator Kerry's tremendous standing in the Senate on his nomination as Secretary of State.

This is a Member of the Senate who has an extraordinary American history. After volunteering for the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam war, Senator Kerry was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. Upon returning home, he continued his efforts to fight for and protect the veterans who served beside him in combat, joining with others to found the Vietnam Veterans for America organization, working tirelessly for veterans' benefits.

With over three decades of foreign policy and national security experience under his belt, Senator Kerry is uniquely qualified to serve as the next Secretary of State. A decorated Vietnam combat veteran, dedicated public servant, with deep experience in international affairs and close relationships with Presidents and Prime Ministers throughout the world, he will have an extraordinary beginning to his job as Secretary of State.

He has demonstrated time and time again his ability to build coalitions and craft compromises. He has amassed a broad record of foreign policy accomplishments and has distinguished himself as one of the Nation's most respected voices on national security.

I look forward to a very strong bipartisan vote that sends a very clear message to the world: This is America's representative. This is our Secretary of State. I believe he has earned that vote and that respect through a lifetime of work and the tremendous collegiality he has had among Members on both sides of the aisle, including those who may not agree with him on any given issue but have always respected the manner in which he has approached that issue.

Mr. President, understanding there are no other speakers wishing to come before the Senate on this matter, I yield back all time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I agree completely with Senator Gillibrand's sense of urgency regarding this vitally needed plan. I also know that my good friend from New York and I agree on the need to recognize and, to the greatest extent possible, to enhance the value of our coastal natural resources to the recovery of our storm-ravaged communities.

It is our understanding--and we request the Chair's clarification-- that the language we have before us directs the Army Corps of Engineers to take the integrated, collaborative approach discussed by the Senator from New York. It is our hope and expectation that the Corps will go well beyond the usual level of coordination in order to take maximum advantage of the expertise and commitment its Federal and non-Federal partners bring to this legislation's explicit goals of flood risk reduction and ecological sustainability.

Again, I agree with my friend from New York. I would also note that this collaborative study should take into account the particular needs of disadvantaged communities within our States, many of which face unique challenges as they seek to reverse the damages of this storm and to prevent future catastrophes. These communities were among the most damaged by this storm and the Army Corps, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other Federal agencies would be remiss not to carefully consider, and balance, the needs of these underserved residents with the need to rebuild commercial areas and critical infrastructure, including industrial facilities, along our coastline. I would urge all agencies funded in this bill to provide for the special needs of these neighborhoods and the shorelines which they depend on.

Great Lakes Navigation

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee for all of her incredible work and help here, as well as that of the staff, in bringing us to this moment. We would not be here without her tremendous work, especially in light of Chairman Inouye's passing. I appreciate the ranking member, someone who understands the challenges, having come from a Gulf State that saw the consequences of disasters.

There are a couple of important dates here. The first one is 91 days, 91 days since Superstorm Sandy hit the Northeast; 91 days we have been languishing, waiting for our Government to respond to the critical issues, life-and-death situations, of fellow Americans. It is 91 days in which people who largely lost their home, or at least the ability to be back in their home, have been waiting for their government to say: Here is how we are going to help you. It is 91 days in which we now have the biting cold of the winter and the defenselessness of a coastline that cannot be subject to a northeaster that will ultimately have real-life consequences to people's lives, to people's properties, to repetitive loss.

It is 91 days compared to what happened during Hurricane Katrina, where $60 billion was moved in 11; 91 days in which people have not been able to get their lives back on track, looking to their government--people who are good citizens, pay their taxes, obey the rules, follow the law, and ultimately say: We have been left behind. It is enough.

Another 118 days. That is all we have left to Memorial Day and the beginning of a critically important season for New Jersey's economy, a $37 billion tourism industry that cannot get back on its feet unless the Federal Government says here is how we are going to help businesses reopen, here is how we are going to help people get back into their homes, here is how we are going to help you rebuild the infrastructure that is not only important to the economy of the State but to the national economy, for which New Jersey and of course New York are such big drivers--well over 10 to 11 percent. We only have 118 days and we have been languishing.

I personally am tired of listening to the voices for patience and delay, suggesting that somehow we as citizens of the United States are second-class citizens waiting for this government to respond to the needs of fellow Americans. That is not what I envision when I think about the United States of America.

Another number: 36 times; 36 times in which we in fact have looked at an emergency in this Nation squarely in the face and said it is an emergency. An emergency is an emergency is an emergency. For over two decades the Congress has looked at this set of disasters and said it is an emergency. But when it comes to the Northeast, somehow it is not an emergency, 91 days later.

Offsets? We didn't have offsets for those over two decades. And when we talk about these offsets we use the words discretionary spending. I think America should know what it means. It means education, it means health care, it means the National Institutes of Health, it means law enforcement, it means a whole host of things we care about in our lives every day, across-the-board cuts, indiscriminate, without anything about what the consequences are--only when it comes to the Northeast.

I want my colleagues to understand that personally this Senator will judge the future by how we are ultimately responded to. We already feel chagrined but it is what it is. We need to act today. Adoption of this amendment would not only create an across-the-board cut that has consequences to critical things Americans broadly depend on and does it indiscriminately, but also sets us farther back because we would have to go back to the House again, delays and more delays. I cannot look in the face of any American, whether in my State or any State in the country, and say, no, your government has abandoned you, you will have to wait. I cannot look at business owners who are making a life decision about whether what little they have they can reinvest and whether they will get any help from the government to open, hire people, and contribute to our economy. I cannot look in the face of a fellow New Jerseyan and say I still can't tell you what the Government will do to get you back in your home. I suggest to any of my colleagues that you would not want to look in the face of your citizens and have to be in the same position.

The time has come to pass this bill without amendment in an up-or- down vote in what I hope will be the same bipartisan vote that we had when we originally passed the Senate bill.

I yield the floor.