[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17243-17259]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1, which the clerk will now report by 
title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense and the other departments and agencies of the 
     Government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Leahy (for Inouye) amendment No. 3338, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Leahy (for Inouye) amendment No. 3339 (to amendment No. 
     3338), of a perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                Amendment No. 3367 to Amendment No. 3338

  Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent the Senate set aside the pending 
amendment and call up my amendment No. 3367.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley], for himself, Ms. 
     Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Wyden, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3367, to Amendment No. 3338.

  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To extend certain supplemental agricultural disaster 
                          assistance programs)

       At the end of title I, add the following:

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 101. (a) Section 531 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1531) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``The Secretary shall 
     use such sums as are necessary from the Trust Fund'' and 
     inserting ``Of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
     the Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary for fiscal 
     year 2012'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``The Secretary shall 
     use such sums as are necessary from the Trust Fund'' and 
     inserting ``Of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
     the Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary for fiscal 
     year 2012'';
       (3) in subsection (e)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Of the 
     funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``per year from the Trust Fund'' and 
     inserting ``for fiscal year 2012'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by striking ``the Secretary 
     shall use such sums as are necessary from the Trust Fund'' 
     and inserting

[[Page 17244]]

     ``of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the 
     Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary for fiscal 
     year 2012''; and
       (5) in subsection (i), by striking ``September 30, 2011'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2012 (except in the case of 
     subsection (b), which shall be September 30, 2011)''.
       (b) This section is designated by Congress as being for an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to--
       (1) section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(2)(A)(i)); and
       (2) section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 
     (Public Law 111-139; 2 U.S.C. 933(g)).
       Sec. 102. (a) Section 196 of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Coverages.--In the case of an eligible crop described 
     in paragraph (2), the Secretary of Agriculture shall operate 
     a noninsured crop disaster assistance program to provide 
     coverages based on individual yields (other than for value-
     loss crops) equivalent to--
       ``(i) catastrophic risk protection available under section 
     508(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)); 
     or
       ``(ii) additional coverage available under subsections (c) 
     and (h) of section 508 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) that does 
     not exceed 65 percent.
       ``(B) Administration.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     section through the Farm Service Agency (referred to in this 
     section as the `Agency').''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon 
     at the end;
       (II) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
       (III) by inserting after clause (i) the following:

       ``(ii) for which additional coverage under subsections (c) 
     and (h) of section 508 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) is not 
     available; and''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by inserting ``(except ferns)'' after 
     ``floricultural'';
       (II) by inserting ``(except ferns)'' after ``ornamental 
     nursery''; and
       (III) by striking ``(including ornamental fish)'' and 
     inserting ``(including ornamental fish, but excluding 
     tropical fish)'';

       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to subsection (l), the Secretary'';
       (3) in subsection (k)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$250'' and inserting 
     ``$260''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``$750'' and inserting ``$780''; and
       (ii) by striking ``$1,875'' and inserting ``$1,950''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Payment Equivalent to Additional Coverage.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make available to a 
     producer eligible for noninsured assistance under this 
     section a payment equivalent to an indemnity for additional 
     coverage under subsections (c) and (h) of section 508 of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) that does not 
     exceed 65 percent, computed by multiplying--
       ``(A) the quantity that is less than 50 to 65 percent of 
     the established yield for the crop, as determined by the 
     Secretary, specified in increments of 5 percent;
       ``(B) 100 percent of the average market price for the crop, 
     as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(C) a payment rate for the type of crop, as determined by 
     the Secretary, that reflects--
       ``(i) in the case of a crop that is produced with a 
     significant and variable harvesting expense, the decreasing 
     cost incurred in the production cycle for the crop that is, 
     as applicable--

       ``(I) harvested;
       ``(II) planted but not harvested; or
       ``(III) prevented from being planted because of drought, 
     flood, or other natural disaster, as determined by the 
     Secretary; or

       ``(ii) in the case of a crop that is produced without a 
     significant and variable harvesting expense, such rate as 
     shall be determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Premium.--To be eligible to receive a payment under 
     this subsection, a producer shall pay--
       ``(A) the service fee required by subsection (k); and
       ``(B) a premium for the applicable crop year that is equal 
     to--
       ``(i) the product obtained by multiplying--

       ``(I) the number of acres devoted to the eligible crop;
       ``(II) the yield, as determined by the Secretary under 
     subsection (e);
       ``(III) the coverage level elected by the producer;
       ``(IV) the average market price, as determined by the 
     Secretary; and

       ``(ii) 5.25-percent premium fee.
       ``(3) Limited resource, beginning, and socially 
     disadvantaged farmers.--The additional coverage made 
     available under this subsection shall be available to limited 
     resource, beginning, and socially disadvantaged producers, as 
     determined by the Secretary, in exchange for a premium that 
     is 50 percent of the premium determined for a producer under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Additional availability.--
       ``(A) In general.--As soon as practicable, the Secretary 
     shall make assistance available to producers of an otherwise 
     eligible crop described in subsection (a)(2) that suffered 
     losses--
       ``(i) to a 2012 annual fruit crop grown on a bush or tree; 
     and
       ``(ii) in a county covered by a declaration by the 
     Secretary of a natural disaster for production losses due to 
     a freeze or frost.
       ``(B) Assistance.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under subparagraph (A) in an amount equivalent to 
     assistance available under paragraph (1), less any fees not 
     previously paid under paragraph (2).
       ``(C) Administration.--For assistance provided under this 
     subsection for the 2012 crop year, the limitation in 
     subsection (i)(2) shall be $250,000.''.
       (b)(1) Effective October 1, 2017, subsection (a) and the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) (other than the amendments 
     made by clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of subsection (a)(1)(B)) are 
     repealed.
       (2) Effective October 1, 2017, section 196 of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7333) shall be applied and administered as if subsection (a) 
     and the amendments made by subsection (a) (other than the 
     amendments made by clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of subsection 
     (a)(1)(B)) had not been enacted.
       (c) This section is designated by Congress as being for an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to--
       (1) section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(2)(A)(i)); and
       (2) section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 
     (Public Law 111-139; 2 U.S.C. 933(g)).

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I want to be very brief in respect for 
my colleagues who wish to speak.
  This amendment addresses an important disaster that occurred in many 
places across our country this year; that is, extensive drought and 
extensive fires.
  I have come to this floor a number of times to describe those 
extensive fires and the damage they did to farmers and ranchers in my 
home State of Oregon, and I know many others have come to the floor to 
share their stories.
  As we address this extraordinarily important bill to respond to the 
devastation of Hurricane Sandy, it is only right and well that we also 
address the disasters that occurred elsewhere in the country earlier in 
the year. There are five provisions of this program that I am going to 
leave in the hands of our distinguished chair of Agriculture to 
address, but I will come back at a further point and speak to them at 
greater length.
  Just suffice it to say, our farmers and ranchers have waited 
patiently while we have attempted to complete the farm bill. The Senate 
did extraordinary bipartisan work on the farm bill, but the House has 
not taken it up. We have not gotten these emergency provisions 
reauthorized. Now, in the context of the bill before us, it is 
appropriate that we take action.
  I yield for my colleague from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Let me just take a moment and thank Senator Merkley, 
Senator Baucus, Senator Wyden, and Senator McCaskill for joining, and I 
know others will join us as well. We are still working very hard to 
complete the farm bill and have the House take action. But in the 
meantime we have disasters that have occurred, and these provisions are 
lifted directly from what we have already passed in the farm bill that 
addressed what has happened in terms of livestock, drought, fires, and 
assistance for fruit tree growers. We will be speaking at a later time 
about this, but these are essential to be included for thousands and 
thousands of farmers and ranchers across the country.
  I thank my colleagues for allowing us to step in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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

[[Page 17245]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                     Tributes To Departing Senators

                                Jon Kyl

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is customary in the days before 
Congress adjourns--and I am still hopeful this Congress will 
eventually, mercifully adjourn--for Members to offer farewells and 
testimonials to departing colleagues. I rise today to say a few words 
about a Senator who is leaving us and whose example I esteem and 
friendship I have relied on for many years.
  Senator Jon Kyl and I have served the State of Arizona together for a 
quarter of a century since Jon was first elected to the other body and 
I to the Senate in 1986. We have worked together in this body for the 
last 18 years. That is a long time to get to know someone with whom you 
share responsibilities to the State we are honored to represent, and I 
have gotten to know Jon very well over these many years. I can also say 
in all honesty that my admiration for him has grown every single day I 
have been privileged to serve with him.
  I share that admiration for Jon with the people of Arizona, who 
elected him to the Senate three times, and would have, I am sure, 
comfortably elected him to a fourth term had he sought reelection. 
Arizonans hold him in very high regard for a very obvious reason: He 
has been a very diligent, very effective advocate for their interests.
  I have observed him closely as we tended to issues that might seem 
arcane and unglamorous to Senators from other States but are among the 
most important and often the most contentious issues to Arizonans--
issues such as land exchanges and water rights settlements. I have 
never failed to be impressed by the qualities Jon brings to these 
matters--his unflappable patience, his tireless work ethic, his careful 
attention to detail, his determination to be fair to all parties 
involved, and to achieve results that are in the best interests of our 
State of Arizona.
  I have tried to learn from his example, and I wish I could say I have 
emulated him, but, regrettably, as Arizonans and my Senate colleagues 
can attest, I still possess a short supply of some of Jon's most 
conspicuous leadership qualities. His patience, for example, his 
meticulous preparation and thoroughness are, I am sorry to say, not 
qualities I will be remembered for, but they have been indispensable to 
the people of our State. It is fortunate for them and for me that 
States are represented by two Senators and that Arizonans have had Jon 
Kyl here to compensate for my shortcomings.
  Jon works harder than almost any Member of Congress I know. We all 
joke about how we are often required to vote on legislation before we 
have

[[Page 17246]]

had time to read it. But it is a poorly kept secret that we rarely, if 
ever, read from preamble to conclusion any of the bills we consider, 
even if we have had months to do so. Jon does, though. He reads them. 
When you debate with him over legislation, you better know what you are 
talking about, because he does and he is almost always better prepared 
than you are not only to explain his argument but to explain yours as 
well. He often writes the bills he sponsors, work that most of us 
almost happily rely on staff to perform. He takes his responsibilities 
as the author of legislation literally, rather than figuratively, as 
most of us do.
  It is hard to imagine where he finds the time to hold himself to such 
exacting standards of responsibility, but he does, often working late 
into the night after the rest of us have gone home, when he reads bills 
and writes them and tends personally to the concerns of his 
constituents. He is a Senator's Senator. He is principled, purposeful, 
informed, collaborative, and able to get things done by cooperation and 
compromise without ever sacrificing the principles that motivate his 
public service. He would rather reason with opponents than insult them. 
He prefers accomplishments to acclaim.
  It is little wonder then why our caucus elected and reelected him to 
our leadership. He has the complete confidence of every one of us. He 
is an easy man to trust with leadership responsibilities. He is 
scrupulous in his attention to his responsibilities and fair-minded in 
use of authority. He has strong views on issues and advocates for them 
effectively. But if he can't persuade some members of our caucus to 
agree with him, he will do all he can to defend our rights to be heard 
and have our position considered fully by the Senate.
  I think Members on both sides of the aisle would testify to Jon's 
fairness, collegiality, and effectiveness. I think we would all testify 
too to the credit his service has reflected on the Senate, a place we 
all love but which we must admit doesn't always function as well or as 
congenially as we would like, a failing that has not escaped the notice 
of the American people. Were Jon the kind of politician who worried 
more about his press than his responsibilities to his constituents, his 
colleagues, and his country, I think many Americans would recognize him 
as the kind of Senator they wished there were more of here.
  It has been my privilege to work with Jon not only on issues of 
unique importance to the State of Arizona but on many of national 
importance. We worked together on comprehensive immigration reform in 
2007. None of the sponsors of the legislation, including myself and my 
friend, the late Senator Kennedy, was more instrumental in forging the 
compromises necessary to put that bipartisan bill together or more 
diligent and effective in defending it in debate.
  I was running for President that year and often away from the Senate. 
In addition to all the work Jon did to write the bill with Senator 
Kennedy and others, and seek support for it in both Houses, he had to 
assume many of my responsibilities as well. He did a better job with 
them than I did, and though we fell short of success, Jon deserves none 
of the blame for failure and much of the credit for making the bill as 
broadly bipartisan as it was and for providing the framework for what 
will be the kind of compromise I hope and believe we will get to the 
President's desk in the next Congress.
  Longevity in public office isn't always that important a distinction. 
I have served one term more than Jon and for that minor accomplishment 
I am referred to as the senior Senator from Arizona. But honestly, I 
have always looked up to Jon as my senior. He has been my leader, my 
senior partner in much of the work we have done in Arizona, my friend, 
and one of the people I most look up to in this place, an example of 
selfless, capable, honorable public service.
  He is leaving the Senate, and he will have time now to spend with his 
lovely wife Caryll, his son and daughter and his grandchildren. He will 
have more time too to hike his beloved White Mountains. I envy him 
that. But I think we would all concede the Senate will miss him, and I 
will miss him particularly.
  Thank you, my friend, for your service, your example, and your 
friendship. It has been a privilege.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The other Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, if my colleagues would indulge me for just 
a moment so I may respond.
  I am deeply moved and very appreciative of the remarks of my 
colleague John McCain. The people of Arizona have been so fortunate to 
be represented by a very few remarkable people in the State's history--
only 10 United States Senators. John McCain is the ninth of those 
Senators and is as distinguished, if not more distinguished, than any 
who have served and represented the State of Arizona.
  He has set a standard for modern representation after being elected 
to the House of Representatives. None of the representatives from 
Arizona were ever the same in their representation. He came home every 
week, maintained very close contact with his constituents, and set a 
pace that no one has since matched, let alone exceeded. So in many 
respects, John McCain has set a new standard for representation.
  But he didn't leave it at the State of Arizona. He is a national 
figure of the first magnitude--one of our great national leaders of the 
day--and it has been an incredible honor for me to serve with him both 
in representing the people of our State but also working on the 
significant issues of the day.
  I will confess that some of the more mirthful moments have also 
occurred on some of the sojourns that Senator McCain has led abroad 
with our colleague Lindsey Graham, sometimes Senator Joseph Lieberman, 
and others, and these occasions also will bring great joy to me in my 
reminiscences, because, obviously, at the end of the day it is 
friendships probably more than almost anything else we think of when we 
get toward the end of both career and the end of our life.
  Senator McCain was far too generous in his description of my 
capabilities. I want to thank him for, among other things, the 
responsibilities he did enable me to undertake, things which, as the 
senior--and yes, he is senior both in age and seniority--he could have 
taken unto himself but which he allowed me to do on behalf of the 
people of Arizona. He was interested in dividing responsibilities in a 
way the two of us could represent our State and our constituents to the 
maximum advantage, and I have always not only admired his approach--and 
the people of Arizona, I would say, should be grateful for that--but it 
enabled me to be involved in things and to have some extra 
responsibilities in areas I otherwise would not have. Not all of these 
were things Senator McCain wanted to deeply get into, such as the water 
rights settlements he mentioned. But nonetheless, he has been 
enormously cooperative on behalf of the people of Arizona in all of 
those endeavors.
  So as I near the end of my time here in the U.S. Senate, I have a lot 
of different emotions and a lot of things I would like to express. I 
regret one thing I won't be able to do is to speak on the Senate floor 
extolling the virtues of my colleague John McCain when he is about to 
leave, but I assure you and assure him that I will do that from some 
other place, and that my deep respect for him, my appreciation and my 
gratitude for what he has said here today, I will try to reciprocate at 
the time he finally completes his service not only to the people of the 
State of Arizona but to this Nation of ours, and frankly also to so 
many people around the world.
  For me to have served with him in this body for 18 years is truly an 
honor, and I thank him for his comments today.


                             Jeff Bingaman

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, over his time in this body, Jeff Bingaman 
has worn many hats: champion of education, expert on energy policy, 
steward of our nation's nuclear arsenal, thoughtful voice on national 
security.
  He has approached each of these varied responsibilities with an 
attitude

[[Page 17247]]

aimed not at attention-grabbing or point scoring, but at practical, 
fact-driven problem solving. In the accurate description of the 
Washington Post, ``Bingaman isn't one to grab the spotlight, but this 
six-term senator's logical, cerebral approach tends to get things 
one.''
  He has indeed gotten things done, for the people of New Mexico first 
and foremost, but his practical approach has benefitted Americans from 
every State. I know first-hand that the people of Michigan have 
benefitted from his leadership.
  I have worked closely over the years with Senator Bingaman to 
preserve programs that are vital to America's manufacturing sector, the 
heart of my State's economy. His support for the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership Program and the Technology Innovation Program has 
made a major difference in the ability of American manufacturers to 
research and develop new technologies, to increase efficiency, to 
improve supply chains and to out-innovate our overseas competitors.
  The people of Michigan also have benefitted from Senator Bingaman's 
leadership of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He worked 
with me to enact legislation that has brought significant improvements 
to Michigan parks and recreational lands. With Senator Bingaman's 
assistance, we have established the River Raisin National Battlefield 
Park, preserving the site of one of the most important battles of the 
War of 1812; made major progress toward completion of the North Country 
National Scenic Trail; enhanced wilderness protection at Pictured Rocks 
National Lakeshore; and made many improvements at Keweenaw National 
Historical Park. So, he has played a major role in helping preserve and 
protect numerous jewels of our State's rich history, culture and 
natural beauty.
  From his post on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Bingaman has 
been one of our Nation's most influential voices on energy, an issue 
that affects nearly every aspect of economic and environmental policy. 
He has worked with skill, intelligence and determination to find 
practical, bipartisan solutions in an issue area too often dominated by 
politics and powerful interests. As we seek to strengthen our Nation's 
competitiveness, his advocacy on renewable energy, energy efficiency 
and other important topics will yield important advantages.
  While we have not had the benefit of his service in this Congress, 
Senator Bingaman served in the past with distinction on the Armed 
Services Committee. In his committee tenure he chaired the Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities and Strategic Forces subcommittees. His deep 
knowledge of science and technology issues was of great value in 
committee deliberations, in particular during the difficult debate over 
the Bush administration's determination to invade Iraq. His expertise 
on energy and nuclear issues gave heft to his skepticism over claims 
that Iraq had sought to acquire uranium from Niger, claims that turned 
out to be false.
  As the son of two educators, it only makes sense that Senator 
Bingaman would be careful, detail-oriented, and reliant on facts rather 
than assumptions. And it's no wonder that in addition to his work on 
energy, defense and natural resources, he has been one of the Senate's 
most consistent and effective advocates for quality education.
  On all of these issues, and so many others, Jeff Bingaman has sought 
solutions and consensus rather than attention and division. His 
careful, deliberate style, his focus on facts, and his determination to 
find practical answers to difficult challenges have been of enormous 
value to the Senate, to the people of New Mexico, and to the Nation. 
They will be missed in the Senate, and so will he. I wish Jeff and Anne 
all the best as the move on from the Senate.


                             Richard Lugar

  Madam President, the Senate has traditionally been seen as a 
moderating force in American politics, as a place where partisan 
interests give way to practical problem-solving, and where men and 
women of good will could, while they might often disagree and debate, 
find agreement on the challenges our nation must face.
  Richard Lugar has, for more than 30 years, upheld that Senate 
tradition. All of us, regardless of party, have great respect for his 
intelligence, his integrity, and his concern for the good of our 
country.
  We have worked together on many matters. Manufacturing is a vital 
sector in the economies of both our states, and Senator Lugar has been 
a strong supporter of federal programs that benefit manufacturing, 
including the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which helps U.S. 
manufacturers research and develop new technologies, increase 
efficiency, improve supply chains and out-innovate our overseas 
competitors. We have worked together on other issues of mutual interest 
to Indiana and Michigan, including preservation of the Great Lakes and 
strengthening America's agricultural sector.
  These are important contributions. Senator Lugar's most lasting 
legacy, however, is likely to be his work protecting Americans, and 
people all over the world, from the threat of proliferation of weapons 
of mass destruction. As a Midwestern Senator, he has followed in the 
finest tradition of Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican Senator from 
Michigan who famously coined the concept that ``politics stops at the 
water's edge.''
  In 1992, Senator Lugar joined with Senator Sam Nunn in a bipartisan 
effort to deal with a pressing national security challenge arising from 
a major national security success: the collapse of the Soviet Union. 
While the end of the Cold War made the world a safer place, the 
splintering of a superpower meant the fearsome Soviet arsenal of 
nuclear and chemical weapons was now in the possession of 15 separate 
nations. Many worried, with good reason, that these newly independent 
nations, struggling in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, might be 
unable or unwilling to prevent the misuse or diversion of these 
weapons.
  The answer was the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, more 
commonly known as Nunn-Lugar, and widely hailed as one of the smartest 
investments America has ever made in our security. Nunn-Lugar has 
eliminated more than 7,000 former Soviet nuclear warheads, and nearly 
2,500 nuclear-capable missiles. It has secured two dozen nuclear weapon 
storage sites, and significantly strengthened controls over remaining 
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their deadly materials. As the 
WMD proliferation challenge has evolved, Senator Lugar has worked hard 
to ensure that the Nunn-Lugar program has adapted to meet that 
challenge, in new regions such as Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. It 
has, in short, been an integral part of our national security strategy 
ever since the end of the Cold War, making our nation more secure, 
keeping us safe.
  This is a legacy of which any Senator would be justifiably proud, and 
it is one on which Senator Lugar has continued to build. We saw the 
value of his leadership as the Senate debated and passed the New START 
Treaty, and we've seen it in the countless instances when Senator Lugar 
has advocated for and helped the Senate approve international 
agreements that have made our nation, our allies and our planet a safer 
place.
  The Senate will miss Richard Lugar's leadership. I hope that each of 
us who will return to the Senate in the New Year can keep in mind his 
legacy of bipartisan leadership and practical problem solving as we 
confront our nation's challenges.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I appreciate the words of the Senator 
from Arizona about the Senator from Arizona, and let me say I look 
forward to sharing some words on the floor at some point in the next 
few days about my friend Senator Kyl. We have disagreed on things in 
some ways, but, boy, have we gotten to know each other. I respect his 
service enormously, and I look forward to having a chance to share some 
thoughts about that.

[[Page 17248]]




                      Remembering Daniel K. Inouye

  Madam President, I think all of us are aware that too often in public 
life words like ``good friend'' or ``remarkable colleague'' are used so 
often they lose a little bit of their impact. But I think we all share 
powerfully--ever since the majority leader announced the sad news last 
evening, and we have seen so many come to the floor to talk about 
Senator Inouye--in the knowledge that Senator Danny Inouye really was 
all those things and so much more.
  He was a quiet man, a humble man, a soft-spoken public servant, but 
those of us who were privileged to serve for so long with Dan Inouye 
know we truly got to know him. I had the privilege of sitting beside 
him and listening to some of the stories talking about things that were 
happening in the Senate, and we truly did get to love him and revere 
him.
  It was more than his uniquely American journey--from the trenches of 
World War II to the Halls of Congress--more than his leadership and 
moral authority on everything from civil rights to the Watergate and 
Iran-Contra hearings. It was more than the Dan Inouye we could read 
about on paper. It was the man himself, in the flesh, who was bigger 
than the legend. That is why the Senate is going to feel his loss for a 
long time.
  We often hear the words ``greatest generation.'' Before Tom Brokaw 
coined the phrase, we knew what it referred to, particularly in the 
Senate where some of us were privileged to serve with people such as 
Bob Dole, John Glenn, Fritz Hollings, and so many others.
  Danny was a bridge to that generation--a generation that I revered 
growing up in the shadows of World War II. I remember talking with my 
dad and hearing how he had volunteered for the Army Air Corps as war 
loomed over Europe. He was a pilot flying DC-3s, paratroopers, 
preparing to go over for the invasion, and he shared with me his regret 
that he came down with tuberculosis and he was released from Active 
Duty and, in his perception, never got his chance to defend his 
country.
  I think about just how much more complicated the prospect of going to 
war must have been for a young Danny Inouye--just 21 years old with 
dreams of becoming a surgeon, dreams interrupted by Pearl Harbor. Here 
he was, the son of immigrants who came to work in Hawaii's pineapple 
fields, his entire life he had thought of himself as a patriotic 
American. Then, suddenly, at a time when across the country young men 
were heeding the call to duty, Dan Inouye's own Nation declared him and 
his family alien enemies. But Dan Inouye's response was not to pull 
inward or to leave or forsake his country. His response was to sign up 
and fight for the country he loved so deeply, even at a time when his 
government's vision was clouded by the horror of Pearl Harbor.
  Fight for his country he did. He put on the uniform and showed us 
what both he and our country are all about. We know Dan was a hero. We 
know he lost his arm on the battlefield in Italy. But I never once 
heard Dan talk about the details of that action that would ultimately 
result in him being awarded the Medal of Honor. He was a quiet man who 
never bragged and rarely spoke of himself. But the citation speaks 
volumes about him and who he became on that bleak April day when Second 
Lieutenant Inouye and his platoon mounted a defense of a ridge guarding 
a critical road junction in San Terenzo, Italy. The citation says, very 
simply:

       With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second 
     Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within 
     five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two 
     grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could 
     retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun 
     nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to 
     engage other hostile positions at close range until an 
     exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the 
     intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct 
     his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men 
     were again deployed in defensive positions.

  That was Dan Inouye. He was a hero whose entire life's lesson was a 
victory over discrimination and anger. Despite the sting of bigotry at 
home--he lost his arm for his country and almost his life--rather than 
being consumed by rancor, he became a voice for reconciliation.
  Because of what he had experienced growing up as a Japanese American 
in what was still a heavily segregated country, Dan always fought to 
make sure that no Americans ever felt unsafe or unwelcomed. ``This is 
our country,'' he famously said in his keynote address at the 
Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968.
  I still remember that speech. I was riveted watching it on 
television. I was in the Navy, serving then. I was training before 
departing for Vietnam. It was strange, the juxtaposition of Dan 
Inouye's words and the hope and what he represented to the carnage in 
the streets, watching what seemed to be a country coming apart at the 
seams. But there was this young Senator, this decorated World War II 
veteran who spoke words that were as chilling as they were prescient. 
He said:

       The true dimension of the challenge facing us is a loss of 
     faith. I do not mean simply a loss of religious faith . . . I 
     mean a loss of faith in our country, in its purposes and its 
     institutions. I mean a retreat from the responsibilities of 
     citizenship.

  He went on to say famously:

       This is our country. Its future is what we, its citizens, 
     will make it. . . . Putting aside hatred on the one hand and 
     timidity on the other, let us grow fresh faith in our purpose 
     and new vigor in our citizenship.

  Those words would serve us well as we think about the challenges we 
face right now in the Senate. That is the kind of citizenship and 
patriotism that Dan Inouye stood for, not just in 1968 but every day we 
were tested.
  After 9/11, Danny was as determined as anyone to bring to justice the 
terrorists who attacked us on that fateful day. The media said it was 
our Pearl Harbor. Dan Inouye remembered better than anybody the first 
Pearl Harbor. He was there. He lived through it. But he also had deep 
convictions about the historic lessons learned the hard way after the 
first Pearl Harbor--mistakes he refused to see repeated 60 years later. 
In the aftermath of September 11, Dan Inouye sounded a warning. He 
said:

       I hope that the mistakes and suffering imposed upon 
     Japanese Americans nearly 60 years ago will not be repeated 
     again against Arab Americans whose loyalties are now being 
     called into question.

  It was a forceful defense. I think it was heard across the Nation. 
Dan understood our values aren't just talk. They are about the choices 
we make, the causes we champion, and the people we fight for. As Dan 
reminded us in Chicago in 1968, this is our country, and its future is 
what we, its citizens, make of it.
  He was an incredible person. During his long painful recovery at 
Percy Army Hospital in Michigan, Dan was down to 93 pounds and 
exhausted. He knew he would never be a surgeon as he once dreamed. He 
struggled then even to light a cigarette and he wanted to curse at his 
nurse. Unbowed, she taught him how to light a cigarette with one hand 
and said simply: ``From now on, you're going to be learning.'' Dan 
Inouye did learn. Happily, we can say he also taught. He taught all of 
us with the power of his example.
  During his convalescence at Percy Jones Army Hospital, he met another 
young lieutenant, a man by the name of Bob Dole. They became fast 
friends and nursed themselves back to health.
  About 2 short weeks ago, two ``greatest generation'' brothers, ailing 
and approaching their 90th birthdays, Dan Inouye and Bob Dole were 
still here teaching us, teaching us what is worth fighting for. I will 
never forget seeing Danny with his oxygen tube walking up to Bob Dole 
before casting his vote in the hopes of helping disabled veterans when 
they travel overseas. Here were these two older citizens telling the 
Senate, through actions and not words, that we have to be better than 
this place has sometimes been in recent days.
  Bob Dole said something about Danny that has deeper meaning now that 
he has left us. Bob said, over there in that corner near the door, 
looking at Danny:

       He was wounded a week from the day I was and a mile from 
     the place I was wounded,

[[Page 17249]]

     and we ended up in the same hospital. He's a Democrat and I'm 
     a Republican, but parties didn't make any difference.

  Those are bonds we ought to learn something from. Those are bonds we 
ought to do a better job of honoring today in this institution Dan 
Inouye loved so deeply.
  Dan Inouye was a special kind of public servant. He walked his own 
path. He got out of that hospital bed, returned to college under the GI 
bill, and went on to George Washington University for his law degree. 
He got himself elected to the Hawaii Territorial Legislature at the 
ripe old age of 30 and then on to the House of Representatives as 
Hawaii's first full member after it won statehood in 1959. Just 3 years 
later, Danny Inouye was a Senator, and eventually he would rise to 
become the highest ranking public official of Asian descent in U.S. 
history.
  I will never forget the critical role he played on the special 
committees that investigated Watergate in the 1970s and Iran-Contra in 
the 1980s. I was here during Iran-Contra, a freshman who approached 
those investigations with a certain zeal. I was in a hurry to find out 
the truth. But I learned from Dan Inouye that a good Senator can 
navigate the path to truth while taking extraordinary care to protect 
and nurture the national interests. So when Dan famously warned at the 
Iran-Contra hearings that there exists a ``shadowy government'' that 
can ``pursue its own ideas of the national interests, free from all 
checks and balances and free from the law itself,'' we all understood 
the gravity and truth behind those words because we respected the 
integrity of the statesman who spoke them.
  Dan had a special sense of his own responsibilities as the first 
Member of Congress from Hawaii. He believed in the Federal Government's 
ability to make a difference in people's lives. He was chairman of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, as we all know. For all the talk in 
the media about earmarks and pork-barrel spending, we saw in Dan how 
one Senator could actually advance the interests of their State and 
articulate a vision for that State which didn't violate anybody's 
sensibilities about how we ought to be spending a Federal tax dollar. 
He used his position unapologetically to bring home investments in 
Hawaii to build roads and bridges and classrooms, all of which changed 
people's lives on an island that most of us only thought of in the 
context of a vacation destination. To Dan, it wasn't a resort. It was 
home. It was people. As the son of a Japanese immigrant who came to 
work in those pineapple fields, Dan needed to make no apologies about 
using the Federal Government to make life for the people he represented 
better.
  It was a perspective that endeared him to his colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle--and no one more so than Republican Senator Ted 
Stevens. They became like brothers. Theirs was a friendship that stood 
the test of time. I often heard the stories from Dan or from Ted--whom 
I got to know well--about how they would travel to various parts of the 
world to see how America was investing its funds and how their 
friendship simply grew during the course of those journeys together. 
Theirs was a friendship that stood the test of time. This place would 
be a lot better off if we could forge bonds the way Dan and Ted did 
since the 1960s. They didn't capitulate. They didn't lose their values. 
They compromised, and they always put what was best--in the case of 
Dan, Hawaii, and in the case of Ted, Alaska, and in both their cases, 
the country--ahead of any kind of partisan squabbling.
  Danny Inouye lived a full and remarkable life, and we will miss him 
dearly. He was proud of his Japanese heritage, proud of his roots, and 
proud of his service as a champion of veterans and veterans' rights. He 
loved our troops. It is fitting that a building at the Walter Reed Army 
Institute of Research now bears his name.
  I often marveled at how hard he fought to regain his health in the 
face of mounting odds.
  He died with no regrets. ``Aloha'' was his last word.
  Hawaii misses Daniel Inouye, America misses him, and our thoughts are 
with his wife Irene and his son Daniel Ken, Jr., who is a great friend 
of my stepson Johnny Heinz, and also the rest of his family at this 
difficult time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Republican leader.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 
great Senator Daniel Inouye. Senator Inouye was a fine colleague and a 
good personal friend of mine.
  While Congress occasionally drifts without direction, Senator Inouye 
was a steady rudder in the Senate. He was the consistent source of 
quiet, but purposeful and effective leadership.
  In an age where the loud crowd often demands center stage, Senator 
Inouye was a reminder that the truth is generally seen, rarely heard. 
He was a man who communicated concisely and precisely just exactly what 
he intended. Through his actions, Senator Inouye demonstrated time and 
time again that he would lead legislative efforts, pool necessary 
support, and do what needed to be done to best represent Hawaii and 
advance all Americans.
  While he chaired the Select Committee on Intelligence and the 
Commerce Committee, I worked with Senator Inouye most during his time 
as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I can attest that 
during most of our hearings, his very presence drove much of our 
activity. Through thick and thin, he reliably led many an effort.
  Senator Inouye's addition to the bipartisan group that later became 
known as the Gang of 14 helped others start to view us as a body with 
legitimacy and true purpose. Daniel Inouye carried the Senate's respect 
and attention toward us, for which I remain incredibly grateful.
  Years back, I was fortunate to travel with Senator Inouye to Italy as 
part of a Congressional delegation trip. It was during our time 
together there that I had one of the strongest emotional responses of 
my life. In Tuscany near the location where Senator Inouye was wounded, 
he visited the gravesites of many of those who served alongside him. 
Seeing Senator Inouye mourn and pay tribute to those who had fallen 
beside him in battle taught me something I could never learn from a 
book or a classroom. Without saying a word, Senator Inouye gave me a 
heightened respect for the shared purpose and camaraderie among those 
who serve in America's Armed Forces.
  Yet while Senator Inouye had the utmost appreciation for what 
happened in the past, he did not allow it to stop him from thoroughly 
enjoying the present. It was on that same trip that the Senator also 
taught me an appreciation for a solidly-built, handsome pair of shoes. 
He advised me on the purchase of a pair of oxfords that are as 
comfortable today as the day I bought them.
  Senator Inouye was a source of personal, policy, and even fashion 
advice for me, and I cherish the time I spent with him.
  America is stronger today because of Daniel Inouye. He will be sorely 
missed by all.


                     TRIBUTES TO DEPARTING SENATORS

                          Kay Bailey Hutchison

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Senator 
Kay Bailey Hutchison, who will be retiring at the end of the year. 
Senator Hutchison has been a dear friend and colleague for a long time. 
She has always been ready to offer wise counsel, and I have usually 
listened.
  It is truly bittersweet saying goodbye to Kay. On the one hand, I 
understand her desire to spend more time with Bailey and Houston; we 
are all glad she will now be able to cheer from the sidelines at their 
soccer games. On the other hand, we will miss seeing them practice 
their corner kicks on the second floor of the Russell building.
  By the way, if you have ever been with Kay on one of her early 
morning power walks, you know where her kids get their energy. I am 
told Kay has worn out multiple Members of Congress, several staffers, 
and quite a few others on those walks. And it is a fitting metaphor for 
her career. There are so many talents in the Senate, it is easy to 
forget what remarkable stories

[[Page 17250]]

many of them have. And Senator Hutchison's is without question one of 
the most impressive.
  Raised in an era when women were a rarity in politics, Kay forged her 
own path, kicking open the door of opportunity wherever she went. In 
the process, she has come to personify Texan independence; which is 
entirely fitting, since one of Kay's great-great-great grandfathers 
signed the Texas Declaration of Independence.
  Kay's many successes in life are a testament to her personal 
toughness and determination in the face of what would have seemed like 
insurmountable obstacles to many lesser talents. Though she was 
``brought up,'' as she once put it, ``to be a lady, to have good 
manners--and to be ready to get married,'' she always excelled in 
school. And she was one of just a handful of women, out of a class of 
hundreds, to graduate from her University of Texas law school class in 
1967.
  Kay hit what she called her ``first brick wall'' after graduation. 
Law firms in Texas just were not hiring women back then, so she turned 
to an industry that would give her a chance, becoming Houston's first 
female news reporter. Indeed, thanks to Kay's success, two competing 
Houston networks hired female reporters within 6 months of her arrival 
at KPRC-TV, the NBC affiliate, in 1967. Appropriately, Kay was assigned 
to cover the Texas Legislature, and she gave it her all.
  Having inherited her dad's work ethic, she was soon being encouraged 
to run for office herself. At the time, few women served in the Texas 
legislature, and not a single female Republican had ever been elected 
to the State House. But Kay had an idea: if those law firms were not 
going to let her interpret the law, she might as well ask her neighbors 
if they would elect her to make the law. So, at the age of 28, Kay ran 
for the Texas House. She dispatched her male opponents with ease, 
becoming one of just 13 Republicans elected that year to the 150-member 
Texas House. It was a tough transition. Kay says that as a cheerleader 
at UT, she was not really prepared for the combat of politics. As a 
cheerleader, she said, she wanted everybody to like her. But she 
overcame that too. Kay has engaged in a lot of tough battles over the 
years, and she has won most of them.
  One story along those lines relates to Kay's office over in Russell. 
Anybody who has ever been there knows that it is at the end of on a 
dead-end hallway, and that at the very end stands a very large flag of 
Texas. Apparently, when Kay put the flag out, the staff director of the 
Rules Committee did not like it. He thought it violated a rule, so he 
mentioned it to his boss, Senator John Warner. Legend has it that 
Senator Warner nodded gravely--gravely--at the young man and told him 
he was free to approach Senator Hutchison, but that he had no intention 
of taking on the mission himself. She is tough.
  Following her service in the State legislature, Kay worked as a 
businesswoman before winning election as State treasurer in 1990. Three 
years later, when Senator Lloyd Bentsen accepted an offer to become 
President Clinton's treasury secretary, Kay jumped into the race to 
replace him. Once again, she bested another all-male field to advance 
to a runoff against Bentsen's appointed successor, trouncing the 
incumbent Democrat with nearly 70 percent of the vote, and becoming the 
first woman to represent the Nation's second-largest State in the U.S. 
Senate.
  Kay came to Washington ready to work. She established herself early 
on as a leader on transportation and NASA, and as a fighter for lower 
taxes, and smaller, smarter government. Kay won acclaim as an advocate 
for science and competitiveness, helped secure bipartisan support for 
the landmark America COMPETES Act, and she became known throughout the 
State for the close attention she paid to constituents.
  Shortly after her election to the Senate, Kay began a tradition--
imitated by many others since--of holding weekly constituent meetings 
over coffee whenever the Senate is in session. The groups usually range 
in size from about 100 to 150, and at any given coffee you might come 
across families in Bermuda shorts, bankers in pinstripes, or college 
football players. Over the years, Kay has hosted about 50,000 people in 
her office through these coffees, but her attention to constituent 
service goes well beyond that. Back home, she is one of few politicians 
in Texas who have actually visited all 254 counties, some of which are 
home to more cattle than people. And during Kay's tenure, her office 
has helped broker the rescue of a Texan from atop Mt. Everest, evacuate 
an oil worker and students during a revolution in Albania, evacuate 
tourists from Machu Pichu after a flood, and help evacuate workers and 
missionaries from Haiti after the devastating hurricanes of 2008.
  All of us are grateful to Senator Hutchison for her work in finally 
recognizing the hundreds of female Army Air Force pilots--or WASPs--who 
flew non-combat missions in World War II, so male pilots would be free 
for combat missions. Thirty-eight of these women lost their lives 
performing their duties. We thank Senator Hutchison for raising 
awareness of their service and their sacrifice and honoring their 
memory. Senator Hutchison's thoughts are never far from our men and 
women in uniform. Her office walls are filled with photos of her visits 
with our troops in Bosnia, Iraq, and elsewhere. In the run-up to the 
Budget Control Act, she authored a bill to assure servicemen and women 
would be paid in the event of a government shutdown, recruiting more 
than 80 cosponsors. She served as chair and ranking member of the 
Military Construction subcommittee on Appropriations. She was a 
tenacious advocate for Texas during a series of BRACs, and the results 
speak for themselves: Today, one out of five Army and Air Force 
personnel are stationed at military installations in Texas, many of 
which were once considered likely candidates for closing.
  Throughout her Senate career, Kay has worked hard to develop and 
maintain close relationships with fellow female senators from both 
parties. As a result of those friendships, Kay helped co-author the 
book ``Nine and Counting: The Women of the Senate'' in 2000, teamed up 
with Senator Feinstein to create the Amber Alert system, and co-
authored legislation with Senator Mikulski to provide stay-at-home moms 
with the same tax-credit opportunities as working women. One of her 
proudest achievements was to lead the successful flight to lessen the 
marriage penalties in our tax code.
  As the ranking member on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Kay 
has wielded outsize influence, partly due to her strong working 
relationship with Chairman Rockefeller, who sometimes refers to her as 
his co-chairperson. And I can say for myself that having Kay at the 
leadership table has been a tremendous asset as I have navigated 
challenges over the years.
  A truly gifted politician, Kay secured reelection by wide margins in 
1994, 2000, and 2006, and still holds the record for most votes in 
Texas history. One reason is she will work with anyone--even those with 
whom she might not typically agree--if it helps Texas.
  While I know many are sorry to see this giant of Texas politics leave 
the arena in Washington, I am sure every one of them admires the spirit 
in which she returns to Ray and the kids and their busy Dallas home. 
Kay, on behalf of the entire Senate, thank you for your extraordinary 
service and for your friendship.
  I know you won't miss having to answer to that buzzer anymore, but we 
will miss you. It has been a privilege to serve with you. On behalf of 
the entire Senate family, I wish you all the very best.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Tribute to Topeka Police Officers

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, we all know it has been a difficult and 
tragic couple of days for America. We were so deeply saddened to hear 
the news from Newtown, CT, on Friday. As a parent, nothing in life is 
more important than

[[Page 17251]]

the protection of our children. The death of a child--there is no 
recovery from. My heart goes out to all the families who lost loved 
ones in this unspeakable tragedy.
  Last night we learned of the death of our colleague Senator Inouye.
  I want to mention today that just this past Sunday, over the weekend, 
grief struck the capital city of Kansas, my home State. Corporal David 
Gogian and Officer Jeff Atherly were fatally shot Sunday in Topeka 
while on duty. These public servants were investigating drug activities 
that were allegedly occurring inside a vehicle outside a neighborhood 
grocery store. As they approached the vehicle and ordered the occupants 
to get out, a gunman took the lives of both officers. When we lose 
someone in a community in Kansas, it is not just a name to us, it is 
somebody we see at our kids' activities at school, somebody we go to 
church with, somebody we know and care about. These two individuals are 
that to their friends and family in Topeka and across our State.
  David had been part of the Topeka Police Department for 21 years. He 
spent 13 years as a reserve officer and 8 years as a full-time officer. 
His service did not begin as a police officer; he had previously served 
his country in the Kansas National Guard and just recently retired. 
Police Chief Ronald Miller described David as someone who spent his 
life in service to his country and to the city of Topeka. David's 
service to his community was clearly a model to others, including his 
son Brandon, who followed in his dad's footsteps and serves the Topeka 
community as a police officer.
  The second officer, Jeff, was just 29 years old and had joined the 
police department last year. Chief Miller said that Jeff was just 
getting started in his career, and he had his entire life ahead of him.
  Jeff grew up in the small community of Carbondale, which is just 
south of Topeka, and graduated from Washington University in 2009 with 
a degree in law enforcement. After graduation, Jeff--like his parents 
Steve and Susan, who are both educators--decided to dedicate his life 
to public service.
  Jeff was known by his friends for his smile, his great sense of 
humor, and his kind heart. He leaves behind his 3-year-old son Logan.
  These two men honorably served their community by faithfully carrying 
out the duties of a law enforcement officer. Rather than shirk from 
danger, police officers pledge to face danger with courage, and that is 
exactly what these two men did.
  Inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in 
Washington, DC, are these words:

       It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it 
     is how they lived.

  Today we remember the lives of David and Jeff and their service to 
the Topeka community. We express our gratitude for their dedication to 
their community and their country. We remember their families and their 
loved ones.
  I ask that all Kansans--in fact, all Americans--join in remembering 
David's and Jeff's families in their thoughts and prayers this week. 
May God comfort them in their time of grief and be a source of strength 
for them. May He also protect all those who continue to serve us today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                      Remembering Daniel K. Inouye

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senate and our Nation have lost one 
of our finest leaders, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. He was an outstanding 
Senator, a true statesman, a patriot, and a gentleman.
  It has been an honor and pleasure to be able to work closely in the 
Senate with Dan Inouye as a member of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee. His service as chairman of the committee--and especially the 
Subcommittee on Defense--has been marked with consistently strong and 
thoughtful leadership. He was appreciated for his courtesies to other 
Members and his seriousness of purpose as he carried out his important 
responsibilities.
  He has also earned the high praise he received from the men and women 
of the Armed Forces, who are the best equipped and trained military 
force in the world thanks to his diligent efforts on their behalf.
  Senator Inouye was friendly and kind to all, but he was also a man of 
resolute courage and strength. He was very successful as an advocate 
for his State of Hawaii and our Nation. All Americans should be 
grateful for his service in the Senate.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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

[[Page 17252]]

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

[[Page 17253]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the parliamentary situation in order so 
I could send an amendment to the desk?
  I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. This is McCain-Coburn amendment No. 3355. I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Coburn be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 
3355.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Coburn, proposes an amendment numbered 3355.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To strike funding for the emergency forest restoration 
                                program)

       Beginning on page 2, strike line 16 and all that follows 
     through page 3, line 2.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is a very simple one. It 
calls for striking the funding of some $58 million for the USDA, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Forest Restoration Program for planting 
trees on private property. It is actually a farm bill subsidy program 
that is run by a relatively unknown agency that is called the Farm 
Service Administration, which is primarily responsible for managing 
crop insurance.
  Under this program, private landowners with about 50 acres of land 
can apply for up to $500,000 in free grants for tree planting 
activities. Obviously, this has nothing to do with an emergency, and 
there is nothing in the supplemental that limits the funding to 
Hurricane Sandy areas. Under this bill, this $58 million can be used 
just about anywhere.
  I would like to make a few remarks about the bill itself so we have 
this in the right context.
  First of all, I want our colleagues--everyone--to understand there 
are

[[Page 17254]]

none of us who do not support--there is no one who does not support--
giving the much needed funding as quickly as possible to help relieve 
the tragedy of Hurricane Sandy, and we believe there are important 
parts of this appropriations bill that we should pass immediately. But 
we also believe there are many provisions in this bill that both have 
nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy and many of the programs in this 
bill will not even take effect before the year 2015. We are about to 
reach the year 2013. We cannot consider this much needed appropriation 
outside the context that we now have nearly a $17 trillion debt, and, 
obviously, this $60 billion is now going to be added to the debt 
because none of it is paid for.
  Let's be clear about this. Every one of my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle wants to act quickly to provide much needed relief for the 
people who have been impacted by the horrible effects of Hurricane 
Sandy. But we cannot consider this legislation in a vacuum. We are 
looking at a $17 trillion debt--somewhere between $16 and $17 trillion. 
We have committed generational theft. We have mortgaged our children's 
and our grandchildren's future. So we must be very careful as to how 
much more of the taxpayers' dollars are spent. For what? When is this 
money necessary? Those are the questions this body should be asking 
itself.
  I would argue there are a whole lot of billions of dollars in this 
bill that fit into the categories of, one, not necessary as a result of 
the impact of Hurricane Sandy and certainly not an emergency situation.
  I would like to go over some of the projects that are in this bill, 
and some of them hold merit. Some of the projects in this bill are very 
meritorious. It goes way beyond emergency aid and funds projects, as I 
said. At a time when we face these deficits, we cannot justify this 
spending. Again, I wish to emphasize some of the projects are 
meritorious, but they should go through the normal budget and 
appropriations process, where Congress has time to vet the need for 
such spending requests.
  The CBO examined both the Senate bill and the administration's 
request and found--and this is from the Congressional Budget Office--64 
percent of the funds appropriated under the Sandy supplemental will not 
be spent until fiscal years 2015 to 2022 and after, therefore, raising 
concerns about the rush to spend $60.4 billion without any attempt to 
pay for it.
  Two weeks ago, FEMA Director Fugate told the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee that the Disaster Relief Fund currently has 
enough money and will not need additional funding until the spring of 
2013. CBO's assessment, combined with the statement of Director Fugate, 
clearly shows we need to pass a Sandy supplemental bill that only 
includes prioritized disaster aid funding.
  I and my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, have been examining 
this bill over the last few days, and I will tell my colleagues, we 
have not gotten all the way through it. We have not identified a lot of 
these spending bills--what they are for and where they came from. The 
appropriators and their staff I always admire. They have turned it into 
an art form, and our ability to ferret out some of these appropriations 
has required a great deal of hard work and effort.
  We have billions to replace ``Federal assets'' damaged by the storm, 
including automobiles owned by the Federal Government. The Federal 
Government currently owns or leases over 660,000 vehicles. Do you think 
we could find replacements within our own inventory, the current 
inventory? Shouldn't we focus on providing relief directly to those 
still trying to rebuild their lives before replacing a bureaucrats' 
car?
  There is $2 million to repair damage to the roofs of museums in 
Washington, DC, while many in Hurricane Sandy's path still have no 
permanent roof over their own heads.
  There is $150 million for fisheries as far away from the storm's path 
as Mississippi and Alaska.
  There is $125 million for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency 
Watershed Protection Program, which helps restore watersheds damaged by 
wildfires and droughts for areas, including Colorado, and, by the way, 
including my own State of Arizona. That money is needed. It is needed. 
We are having wildfires across the Southwest and the West in an 
unprecedented fashion because we are in severe drought, and I want that 
money for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed 
Protection Program. But it has nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy. That 
is what is wrong with this bill. I will fight for the $125 million that 
would help my State of Arizona, and I will fight to find ways to pay 
for it. I will do both. But we are including $125 million for the 
Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection Program, 
which is several hundred miles away from the path of Hurricane Sandy.
  There is $20 million for a nationwide Water Resources Priorities 
Study. While studies are important, they are not emergencies and should 
be submitted during the upcoming budget debate.
  We badly need a water resources priorities study. There was just a 
recent study about the Colorado River basin and how we are going to run 
out of water. But, again, the water resources priorities study is not 
associated with Hurricane Sandy.
  There is $15 million for NASA facilities, though NASA itself has 
called its damage from the hurricane minimal. One day after the storm 
hit, NASA's Wallops Island put out a statement stating that ``an 
initial assessment team surveyed roads and facilities at NASA's Wallops 
Flight Facility today reporting a number of downed trees but otherwise 
minimal impact in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.'' Does this mean we need 
$15 million for NASA's facilities?
  There is $336 million for taxpayer-supported Amtrak without a 
detailed plan for how the money will be spent. Some of the funding will 
go for repairs. Money will also go to increasing capacity and future 
mitigation efforts. Amtrak is up and running. We can go right over 
here--not very far from here--to Union Station and get on Amtrak. It is 
not apparent why this funding is deemed ``emergency'' spending and 
included in this spending package. Further mitigation should be debated 
next year.
  The dirty little secret is that Amtrak loses billions of dollars 
every year. That is because we subsidize unneeded and unnecessary 
routes. The route on the east coast from here to New York, for example, 
makes money. But we cling to those routes that neither make money nor 
does anybody care to patronize.
  There is $5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers--more than the 
Army Corps of Engineers' annual budget. With no clarity as to how the 
money will be spent. Included in the Senate bill is $50 million in 
funding for more studies, which will most definitely lead to additional 
Army Corps projects and a new task force established by executive 
order.
  More projects are not something the Army Corps can handle. They are 
currently experiencing a backlog of construction and maintenance 
projects of approximately $70 billion. Furthermore, a 2010 report 
released by the Government Accountability Office noted that carryover 
funds have increased ``due to the large amount of supplemental funding 
the Corps has received in recent years.'' Clearly, supplemental 
spending on the Army Corps has not paid off.
  The bill includes $12 billion to $13 billion for future disaster 
mitigation activities and studies, without identifying a single way to 
pay for it. I think we need future disaster mitigation activities. We 
need studies. We are experiencing climate situations which we never 
anticipated. Certainly Hurricane Sandy was never anticipated by any of 
us. We need the studies. But that is not an emergency to handle the 
effects of Hurricane Sandy and should come out of normal funding and be 
paid for. I support these studies. But should they come out of the 
taxpayers' pocket without a way to pay for it?
  There is no justification to include these projects in this emergency 
spending bill. Waiting to fund these projects

[[Page 17255]]

until next year during the normal budget and appropriations process, we 
will have a better understanding of the path forward and reduce the 
possibility of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  There is $10 million to improve weather forecasting capabilities and 
infrastructure. Mr. President, $10 million to improve weather 
forecasting capabilities and infrastructure--do we truly need to 
include that in an emergency funding bill for Hurricane Sandy? As I 
mentioned at the beginning, at some point we are going to have to start 
paying for things. At some point we are going to run out of Chinese 
money. At some point we are going to be like Greece. At some point the 
American people are going to say ``enough.'' Every American family has 
to balance their budget. Every American family has to make tough 
decisions. Why don't we make some tough decisions if we want to have 
things paid for such as weather capabilities, such as Amtrak, such as 
replacing Federal assets, buying vehicles when we have 660,000 vehicles 
in the inventory? Why don't we start making tough decisions?
  I often mention that the approval rating we have from the American 
people is rather interestingly low. The last one I saw was an 11-
percent approval rating. No wonder--no wonder--we are about, in a 
matter of literally hours, to spend about $60 billion of the American 
taxpayers' money--estimates by some are it should be around $24 
billion--without hearings, without the kinds of scrutiny it deserves in 
the normal appropriations process.
  I understand why we need some of this money in an emergency fashion. 
But it is akin to the train leaving the station. It is loaded with pork 
and it is moving and so everybody wants to get on board. It is not the 
way the Congress should do business.
  So, Mr. President, I will ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment, 
which is to strike funding for $58 million for the tree planting 
subsidy known as the Forest Restoration Program for planting trees on 
private property.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Is the Senator asking for the yeas 
and nays?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am asking for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There does not appear to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. McCAIN. OK. Then I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue 
with the call of the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There does not appear to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Remembering Daniel K. Inouye

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today, as so many colleagues have 
done throughout the day, to pay tribute to a tremendous colleague whom 
we lost yesterday, a friend to all of us, someone from whom we have all 
learned a tremendous amount, on both sides of the aisle, about how to 
work together, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. He was an outstanding Senator, 
a cherished colleague, and a dear friend.
  We all know he dedicated his life to serving our country, first as a 
soldier in World War II where he put his life on the line for our 
freedoms, for our country, and then as a Member of Congress for 53 
years. Senator Inouye was Hawaii's first Congressman. Think about that, 
the first Congressman. Today marks the first day in the history of our 
country that the State of Hawaii has not been represented in Congress 
by Danny Inouye.
  He also had a special connection to my home State of Michigan, and 
Senator Levin and I have both been very proud of that fact. He was a 
patient at a hospital in Battle Creek during World War II where he met 
Philip Hart and Bob Dole. Can you imagine those three great men coming 
together serving our country, wounded, doing rehabilitation at a 
hospital together in Michigan and all going on to be involved in public 
service as Senators?
  That building is still standing. It is no longer a hospital; it is 
another Federal building. It is our great honor in Michigan to have 
that building named the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center, honoring all 
three of these outstanding leaders.
  Senator Inouye was a great mentor for me as well as so many of us in 
the Senate. Coming to the Senate, he always encouraged me during the 
elections. He always told me to hang in there, that things would go 
well and it would be great. He was always a person with a smile on his 
face, encouraging each and every one of us. He was there encouraging me 
when we were fighting for our economic lives in Michigan with the 
automobile industry, saying it was going to be OK, that we would be 
able to get through it, and that things would be better on the other 
side. He was right, with the help of so many people here and the 
President.
  He also has consistently said to me: I want to help your city of 
Detroit. I want to make sure I do everything I can to support that 
great city. He has been a wonderful friend and supporter on that front 
as well.
  He also received a distinguished honor given by the Arab-American 
community in Michigan after he helped us establish the first National 
Arab American Museum. After 9/11 when there were stories of young Arab-
American children and girls who were being harassed or attacked while 
wearing their traditional garb in school, he called up leaders in 
Michigan to tell them they had his support as a Japanese American, 
knowing what he had gone through in a very difficult time in our 
country's history. He showed incredible support to a great part of our 
Michigan community.
  He is beloved by so many around Michigan, but no more than those who 
are in the Arab-American community who are business leaders, community 
leaders, who found themselves, just because of their heritage, in very 
difficult circumstances. He has shown great support to them and was a 
great role model to them. I was proud to be a part of honoring him a 
few years ago in Michigan with the highest award coming from that 
community.
  He touched lives everywhere he went. He served with quiet dignity. He 
had a strong, firm conscience. He has set an example for each one of 
us. He was a true patriot and a true American hero in every sense of 
the word. The Senate and the American people will miss him greatly. My 
thoughts and prayers are with his family this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                Amendment No. 3350 to Amendment No. 3338

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 3350.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Tester], for himself, Mr. 
     Udall of Colorado, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Wyden, and 
     Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 3350 to amendment 
     No. 3338.

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

[[Page 17256]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide additional funds for wildland fire management)

       On page 72, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

                        wildland fire management

       For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management'', 
     $653,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such amount is designated by Congress as being for an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)(i)); Provided further, That, not later 
     than December 31, 2013, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on new 
     models or alterations in the model that may be used to better 
     project future wildfire suppression costs.

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Tim 
Johnson of South Dakota be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3350.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks on 
amendment No. 3350. This past summer was the third worst fire year in 
the history of this great country, with over 9.2 million acres burned. 
Over 1 million of those acres were in the State of Montana. The drought 
that drove this year's fire season persists and is projected to worsen 
in 2013, creating conditions for an equally or potentially greater fire 
season this upcoming year.
  This trend is not stopping. Conditions are changing on the ground. I 
think we are all seeing impacts. I am certainly seeing impacts on my 
family farms. We are seeing impacts across the forests of this country, 
and western Montana is no exception.
  My amendment with Senator Udall does two things: First, it provides 
funding for the difference between the current funding request to 
prepare for and suppress wildfire and the amount the 2013 fire season 
is expected to cost; second, it requires GAO to make recommendations on 
a better model to project the cost of wildfires in the future.
  Wildfires are continuing to burn, and burn hotter and faster, larger 
and earlier, and doing more damage than in past years. We need to 
assure the resources to address these catastrophic events are there 
this next year and with a study into the future.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  unanimous consent agreement--S. 3276

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate has been considering the 
supplemental appropriations bill for 2 days now. The Republicans, I am 
told, are in the process of trying to picture out what they want to do. 
We have other concerns, as you know. We had the tragedy in Connecticut, 
and we had the untimely death of our friend Senator Inouye. But time 
doesn't stop for anything. It keeps marching on, Christmas is coming. 
We have a fiscal cliff that is on the horizon. So I hope we can make 
progress on this bill in the morning. If not, I will be forced to file 
cloture to try to figure out a path forward on this bill. It has been 
open for amendment. That is what my friends said they wanted, and that 
is what they have.
  We have the DOD authorization. We need to complete action on that 
conference report, which has been completed now. We expect they will 
file tonight or tomorrow, so we need to complete that before the end of 
the week.
  Christmas is 7 days from today. We have judicial nominations. We have 
been making some progress with the district court nominations. We have 
to do three more before the end of the week. We have executive 
nominations we need to consider before the end of the week.
  FISA is an important piece of legislation. Imperfect as it is, it is 
what is necessary to help us be protected from the evil that is in the 
world. We have to complete this before we leave here this week.
  Today is Tuesday. Everyone else can do the math just as well as I can 
about how many days are left.
  I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the 
majority leader after consultation with the Republican leader, the 
Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 463, S. 3276; that the 
only first-degree amendments in order to the bill be the following: 
Judiciary Committee-reported substitute; Leahy, sunset; Leahy, 
oversight; Wyden, public reporting; Wyden, backdoor searches; Tester, 
reverse targeting; and Merkley, declassification of FISA Court opinion; 
that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided between the proponents 
and opponents; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate 
proceed to votes in relation to the amendments in the order listed; 
that there be no amendments in order to any of the amendments prior to 
the votes; that upon disposition of the amendments, the bill be read a 
third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as 
amended, if amended.
  Mr. President, before the Chair rules, it is pretty easy to figure 
out how much time this includes. This is the better part of a day--the 
better part of a day if we got this consent done. So I ask that the 
Chair approve the consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do 
intend to object, first of all, I say to the leader, thanks for moving 
toward the FISA bill because--the Senator is exactly right--this is a 
bill that must get done before the end of the year so we can make sure 
our intelligence community is able to gather, in a lawful and legal 
way, the kind of intelligence that helps keep America safe and secure.
  There are two documents; first, a Statement of Administration Policy 
from the White House where they have agreed to the bill that has 
already passed the House, and second, a letter from the leadership of 
the intelligence community--namely, the Director of National 
Intelligence as well as the Attorney General--directed as the 
leadership, both of which letters and statements support the House 
bill.
  It is because of that and because of the fact that if the House bill 
comes through here--and I understand we may have to have debate, may 
have to have amendments debated, whatever the leader says--but the 
important thing is that we can hopefully get that bill passed and send 
it directly to the President's desk.
  So I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 
letter from the DNI and the Attorney General dated February 8 as well 
as the Statement of Administration Policy dated September 10.
  Mr. President, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                               Washington, DC, September 10, 2012.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


       H.R. 5949--FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012

                  (Rep. Smith, R-TX, and 5 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly supports H.R. 5949. The bill 
     would reauthorize Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act (FISA), which expires at the end of this 
     year. Title VII of FISA allows the Intelligence Community to 
     collect vital foreign intelligence information about 
     international terrorists and other important targets 
     overseas, while providing protection for the civil liberties 
     and privacy of Americans. Intelligence collection under Title 
     VII has produced and continues to produce significant 
     information that is vital to defend the Nation against 
     international terrorism and other threats. The Administration 
     looks forward to working with the Congress to ensure the 
     continued availability of this critical intelligence 
     capability.

[[Page 17257]]

     
                                  ____
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Leaders Reid, Pelosi, and 
     McConnell: We are writing to urge that the Congress 
     reauthorize Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act (FISA) enacted by the FISA Amendments Act of 
     2008 (FAA), which is set to expire at the end of this year. 
     Title VII of FISA allows the Intelligence Community to 
     collect vital information about international terrorists and 
     other important targets overseas. Reauthorizing this 
     authority is the top legislative priority of the Intelligence 
     Community.
       One provision, section 702, authorizes surveillance 
     directed at non-U.S. persons located overseas who are of 
     foreign intelligence importance. At the same time, it 
     provides a comprehensive regime of oversight by all three 
     branches of Government to protect the privacy and civil 
     liberties of U.S. persons. Under section 702, the Attorney 
     General and the Director of National Intelligence may 
     authorize annually, with the approval of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), intelligence 
     collection targeting categories of non-U.S. persons abroad, 
     without the need for a court order for each individual 
     target. Within this framework, no acquisition may 
     intentionally target a U.S. person, here or abroad, or any 
     other person known to be in the United States. The law 
     requires special procedures designed to ensure that all such 
     acquisitions target only non-U.S. persons outside the United 
     States, and to protect the privacy of U.S. persons whose 
     nonpublic information may be incidentally acquired. The 
     Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of 
     National Intelligence conduct extensive oversight reviews of 
     section 702 activities at least once every sixty days, and 
     Title VII requires us to report to the Congress on 
     implementation and compliance twice a year.
       A separate provision of Title VII requires that 
     surveillance directed at U.S. persons overseas be approved by 
     the FISC in each individual case, based on a finding that 
     there is probable cause to believe that the target is a 
     foreign power or an agent, officer, or employee of a foreign 
     power. Before the enactment of the FAA, the Attorney General 
     could authorize such collection without court approval. This 
     provision thus increases the protection given to U.S. 
     persons.
       The attached background paper provides additional 
     unclassified information on the structure, operation and 
     oversight of Title VII of FISA.
       Intelligence collection under Title VII has produced and 
     continues to produce significant intelligence that is vital 
     to protect the nation against international terrorism and 
     other threats. We welcome the opportunity to provide 
     additional information to members concerning these 
     authorities in a classified setting. We are always 
     considering whether there are changes that could be made to 
     improve the law in a manner consistent with the privacy and 
     civil liberties interests of Americans. Our first priority, 
     however, is reauthorization of these authorities in their 
     current form. We look forward to working with you to ensure 
     the speedy enactment of legislation reauthorizing Title VII, 
     without amendment, to avoid any interruption in our use of 
     these authorities to protect the American people.
           Sincerely,
     James R. Clapper,
       Director of National Intelligence.
     Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
       Attorney General.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will continue to work on a path forward. 
If anyone has any ideas how to help me do that, I would be happy to 
listen to them, but this is something we must do before we leave here. 
Christmas is not more important than this legislation. I am sorry, I 
hope I am not offending anyone, but that is the way it is. We have to 
get something done on this before the end of the year, and I think we 
will be walking on very, very thin ice to try to wait until after 
Christmas to try to move this legislation. It is hard for me to 
comprehend the potential damage to our country if we do not extend this 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 3368

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3368.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I object. I feel somewhat ill at ease here with not having 
anyone managing the bill at all, but I would hope that my friend will--
I will talk to Senator Leahy, but I am not in a position here to agree 
with it.
  One thing I am not going to do, regardless of what the managers say, 
is have a big stack of amendments here that we are going to be worrying 
about. So I don't know where everybody is, but the managers aren't 
here.
  Mr. COBURN. Through the Chair, I would ask the majority leader, he 
does not want amendments to be made pending for us to debate?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, do we have amendments pending now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are amendments pending.
  Mr. REID. How many amendments are pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a substitute amendment and four 
first-degree amendments.
  Mr. REID. The Senator is filing a first-degree amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. I am.
  Mr. REID. One more shouldn't do much damage.
  Mr. COBURN. Well, I have five I was going to place pending, and I 
will be happy to work with the managers.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend again, through you, Mr. President, I am 
happy to do one, but the managers--I haven't talked to them in the last 
couple of hours. I am not going to agree to five amendments. I have no 
idea what is in them. If the Senator wants to lay down one of the 
amendments tonight, that is fine, but until we have managers on the 
floor, I am not going to agree to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                Amendment No. 3371 to Amendment No. 3338

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside and that amendment No. 3371 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, propose an amendment numbered 3371 to amendment No. 
     3338.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To ensure that Federal disaster assistance is available for 
           the most severe disasters, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec. 52007.  (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency (in this section referred to as 
     the ``Administrator'') shall review the public assistance per 
     capita damage indicator and shall initiate rulemaking to 
     update such damage indicator. Such review and rulemaking 
     process shall ensure that the per capita indicator is fully 
     adjusted for annual inflation for all years since 1986, by 
     not later than January 1, 2016.
        (b) Not later than 365 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator shall--
       (1) submit a report to the committees of jurisdiction in 
     Congress on the initiative to modernize the per capita damage 
     indicator; and
       (2) present recommendations for new measures to assess the 
     capacities of States to respond and recover to disasters, 
     including threat and hazard identification and risk 
     assessments by States and total taxable resources available 
     within States for disaster recovery and response.
       (c) As used in this section, the term ``State'' means--
       (1) a State;
       (2) the District of Columbia;
       (3) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
       (4) any other territory or possession of the United States; 
     and
       (5) any land under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe, as 
     defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I would also say to my friend the Senator from Oklahoma 
that the manager will be here bright and early in the morning. I will 
call him now.

[[Page 17258]]


  Mr. COBURN. That is fine. I have no choice but to accede to the 
Senator's wishes, so I will.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Would the Senator from Oklahoma yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. Absolutely.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I have a section of this bill, and I wonder if that 
amendment is relevant to my bill, and I would extend some courtesy.
  Mr. COBURN. This is updating per capita damage indicators and the 
process for determining declarations. Oklahoma has had more 
declarations declared, but we haven't updated the per capita indicator 
for a long time, so we have had no increase in that. So what is 
happening is that it is too easy to get a declaration declared. I am 
trying to have them update that to where it is more reflective of the 
true cost.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the Senator's advocacy for Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. This would actually hurt Oklahoma.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. But what I am wanting to say to the Senator from 
Oklahoma is that my subcommittee deals with coastal impact, so the 
issue the Senator wishes to raise is with the Subcommittee on Homeland 
Security.
  If it dealt with my part of the bill, I would say--because I know 
what the Senator is trying to do, and I appreciate it, which is trying 
to move the Senate forward in an expeditious way.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. We have a bill before us that is $64 billion, and I have 
spent the last week trying to get the OMB and Department of Commerce 
the background on all of these requests, and what I can tell you is 
there is an immediate need for about $24 billion that we ought to be 
passing through this Chamber to take care of immediate needs over the 
next 2 years in relationship to this tragedy in terms of Sandy.
  Almost every amendment I am going to offer or hope to offer is about 
transparency, is about limiting who can have access, such as people who 
are in arrears on their taxes for years and years.
  What we learned on the Homeland Security Committee, which has the 
authorization of most of these programs, which I will become ranking 
member of, is that out of the $100 billion-plus we spent on Katrina, 
$11 billion of it got wasted. One of the reasons it got wasted is 
because we didn't have transparency, we didn't have good-government 
amendments on it. And we are getting ready to make that mistake again.
  So I was asked to come down, by our side of the aisle, to have 
amendments pending, and now that I can't have amendments pending, I 
think I will just talk in general about this bill for a moment, if I 
might.
  There is no one in the Senate who does not want to meet the needs of 
the people who have suffered from this horrific storm. How we do that 
is important. Meeting immediate needs in terms of the insurance fund 
for flooding--that is something on which everybody would agree. Nobody 
is going to object to that. We are going to be short on that. But also 
what is important in that is that we should have a provision that if 
you were in a floodplain and didn't buy the insurance, we certainly 
should not be ponying up our grandkids' money to pay for you when you 
chose not to insure it.
  The reason that is important--there are two moral principles on why 
that is important. No. 1 is that we are going to endorse 
irresponsibility. No. 2 is that if we don't put that provision in this 
bill, the NFIP is never going to work because in the future everybody 
is going to say: Don't worry, you don't have to buy the flood 
insurance. Congress is going to take care of it.
  So it is those kinds of good-government things that I am trying to 
put into this bill, and now I am unable to bring amendments to the 
floor. There is no reason not to bring amendments to the floor right 
now.
  We are going to pick and choose what amendments we are going to bring 
to the floor when we have good-government amendments? I am at a loss to 
know why we would object to good-government amendments.
  I understand the majority leader's reasoning. We now have five 
amendments pending on this bill of $60 billion. You take five or six of 
the agencies, this bill is going to be more than what all five of those 
agencies spend in a year, and 64 percent of this bill would not even 
get obligated until 2015 at the earliest.
  I also would remind my colleagues that on this $64 billion bill, we 
don't have to offset any spending anywhere under the rules. So here we 
have this $64 billion, when we know we are wasting hundreds of billions 
every year in agencies throughout this government, and we are going to 
borrow $64 billion and not do the good-government cleanup, 
transparency.
  One of our amendments is about creating a Web site so everybody can 
see. One of our amendments is about not having no-bid contracts or 
sole-source contracts. We have all this experience from Katrina where 
we know the money was wasted. Yet now we are precluded from putting 
amendments on the Senate floor that would keep us from wasting that 
very money in this emergency supplemental bill. It shows the 
dysfunction of the Senate.
  In 2005 and 2006, we would not have had this happen. Amendments would 
be offered, they would get voted down or embarrassed into not asking 
for a vote, or withdrawn. Now we are going to pick and choose good-
government amendments. In other words, we are saying we don't want good 
government. We don't want to do the hard work of making things 
efficient and effective when we go to spend $64 billion.
  I don't get it. I don't understand it. Generations will not 
understand it that follow us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                      Newtown, Connecticut Tragedy

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to offer condolences to the 
families and the communities of Newtown, CT, and to offer my 
condolences to the family of Daniel K. Inouye, the Senator from Hawaii.
  For nearly a week now, my thoughts and prayers have been with 
everyone in Connecticut and all those families whose lives have been 
changed by the murders in Newtown. Like so many Americans, Sharla and I 
continue to struggle with the news. We prayed for lives that were lost 
and grieved for their families and their loved ones.
  As a former teacher, but more importantly as a father and 
grandfather, I can't begin to make sense of the violence, especially 
against children--children, our future, the same age as my grandkids, 
exposed to the unthinkable actions of an assassin. No one can make 
sense out of it. I don't think we ever will. But we can offer hope.
  We can offer our solidarity as Americans who unify in tragedy to look 
ahead--shaken with grief but strengthened with courage. In the days and 
weeks ahead, we will work together to address the unspeakable violence 
that has hurt our Nation. As a Senator, it is my responsibility to 
address the growing issue of violence in America, particularly as it 
applies to schools and public places, and to stand to ensure the safety 
of our children.
  While we mourn the deaths of innocent children and their educators, 
we must bring ourselves together for an honest, real, national 
conversation about every aspect of this terrible attack. It will be a 
difficult conversation, but it is the responsible and necessary next 
step for the children of this country, for the children of Montana, and 
I look forward to rising to the challenge.


                      Remembering Daniel K. Inouye

  Earlier today, I had the opportunity to sit in the Presiding 
Officer's chair, and I heard many Members of this body speak of Senator 
Inouye. Some spoke of him as a distinguished voice, a Senator's 
Senator, a great hero, a true patriot, a singularly iconic leader, an 
incredibly great man, a giant of the Senate, a mountain of Hawaii, and 
the list goes on and on and on.
  You know, they say the hardest thing to get in life is a friend, and 
the easiest thing to lose in life is a friend. Danny Inouye was a 
friend.
  I will never forget when one of my neighbors came out to visit me. 
Dan's

[[Page 17259]]

office is right next door to mine in the Hart Building. Now, make no 
mistake about it, before I came to this body I knew of Dan Inouye's 
past as a war hero, as a part of the Watergate investigative committee. 
He truly was somebody I knew before I got here through the media.
  Well, so did my neighbor. After I had been here for a while I started 
to take Dan for granted. He was just one of us. So my neighbor was 
here, and we were standing in the anteroom of my office and Dan Inouye 
came walking out of his office. My neighbor's eyes almost rolled out of 
his head and fell on the floor. He wanted to meet Dan. Why? Because he 
was a great American and he knew it. He knew this was an opportunity he 
shouldn't pass up.
  I stopped into Dan Inouye's office today and passed along my 
condolences to the staff and had the opportunity to walk back into 
Dan's office. One of the things that was pointed out to me was a sugar 
contract that set right above his chair, right in front of him. It was 
what he looked at every day when he sat at that desk--a sugar contract 
his parents had. Why? So he didn't forget where he came from. And all 
the time Dan Inouye served in this body he was probably as grounded as 
anybody ever could be because he never forgot where he came from.
  When I first got here, I was trying to get on the Appropriations 
Committee. I went to visit Senator Inouye, and he said he would help, 
and he did.
  Dan Inouye was going to Cody, WY, and he flew into Billings, MT, and 
drove down to Cody for a veterans event. In doing so, he drove through 
forests that were brown and dead, and he came back and asked me: What 
is going on with the forests in Montana?
  I said: Dan, I have a bill called a forest jobs and recreation act 
that will help remedy that problem. Dan's response was: Sign me up as a 
cosponsor. He was always there to help.
  I remember one time in the cloakroom he was telling a war story about 
after he had gotten his arm blown off. They were laying on stretchers--
this was in the 1940s, and medicine has come a long way since then, 
remember. But they were laying on stretchers, and there were many folks 
there, many with limbs missing, and he said there was a man of the 
cloth giving last rights. They came to Dan and Dan said: No, I am not 
going anywhere. And he stayed with us, thank goodness, and came to the 
Congress and then to the Senate. What a man. What an incredible man he 
was.
  He always sat at our table at the caucus lunch, and when he came in 
he referred to me as ``Big One,'' and then proceeded to lecture me as 
to why I needed to lose weight if I was going to stick around here for 
a while. I always appreciated that.
  Another time we were in his office visiting about some legislation, 
and out of the blue he asked me how many men I had on staff. I was 
going down the list counting them when he said: You know how many I 
got?
  I said: No.
  He said: I got two because women are better.
  That was Dan Inouye. He also had a connection to probably every State 
in the Union, and Montana was no exception. He always spoke of Mike 
Mansfield with great passion.
  When I was in his office earlier today I noticed on the wall he had a 
picture of Ted Stevens, LBJ, Warren Rudman, and, of course, Mike 
Mansfield. On that picture, Mike Mansfield, then-majority leader, had 
written to my friend Senator Dan Inouye: ``With admiration, respect, 
and affection.''
  I can't say it any better.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                        Remembering Jamie Ellis

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise tonight to pay tribute to Jamie 
Ellis, a beloved member of my staff who passed away on Tuesday, 
November 27, at the age of 65.
  Jamie Ellis served his State and country proudly as a constituent 
liaison in my office in Tupelo. He handled veterans issues, a role he 
filled with compassion, ability, and integrity. It was a natural fit. 
Jamie brought to the position his own background of military service 
and experience as a volunteer Veterans Service Officer for the local 
chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America. He had a deep understanding 
of the unique circumstances our veterans face, and he worked tirelessly 
to make their lives better. His help and kindness will not be 
forgotten.
  This ability to work well with others was evident throughout Jamie's 
career, from his years in public service to his success in business. He 
knew how to lead--a talent that served him well as president of Ellis 
Brothers Timber and Wonder Wood Products in Mississippi. Before joining 
my office, he was a valued independent sales agent for Lawson Products 
in Illinois.
  Jamie deserved the respect that veterans and others bestowed upon 
him. He served in the U.S. Air Force from 1966 to 1970, spending nearly 
3 years in southeast Asia, including 1 year in Vietnam. He then served 
in the National Guard. In his home community of Saltillo, Jamie was a 
32nd-degree Mason and Shriner and member of the Saltillo First United 
Methodist Church.

  Helen Keller once said:

       The world is moved along not only by the mighty shoves of 
     its heroes, but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of 
     each honest worker.

  Jamie was the true and honest worker Ms. Keller describes, and he was 
a hero to those he helped. There is no doubt his contributions have 
made the world a better place than he found it.
  I am thankful to have known Jamie Ellis and to have had him on my 
staff. My wife Gayle and I extend our deepest sympathy to his loved 
ones. To many, Jamie was a fellow veteran and a good friend. To his 
family, he was a devoted son, husband, father, brother, and 
grandfather.
  Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, especially his wife 
Judy of 42 years, and their three children and nine grandchildren. He 
will be truly missed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________