[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17880-17882]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is the substitute now pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                      Amendment No. 3338 Withdrawn

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I withdraw the pending substitute amendment 
No. 3338.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right and the amendment 
is withdrawn.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished majority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the manager of 
this bill, Senator Leahy. He and I have worked together on the 
Appropriations Committee for more than a quarter of a century.


                           Amendment No. 3395

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. President, I have a substitute amendment at the desk and I ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3395.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                Amendment No. 3396 to Amendment No. 3395

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a first-degree amendment to the 
substitute which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3396 to amendment No. 3395.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. __.

       This Act shall become effective 7 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3397 to Amendment No. 3396

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk, and I ask for it to be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 17881]]

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3397 to amendment No. 3396.

  The amendment is as follows:
       In the amendment, strike ``7 days'' and insert ``6 days''.

                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion to the substitute at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute 
     amendment No. 3395 to H.R. 1, an act making appropriations 
     for the Department of Defense and other departments and 
     agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2011.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Benjamin L. Cardin, Mark 
           Begich, Joe Manchin III, Tom Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Mary Landrieu, Christopher A. Coons, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Jack Reed, Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand, Tom Udall, Bernard Sanders, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse.


                           Amendment No. 3398

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a first-degree amendment to the text 
of the language proposed to be stricken which is at the desk, and I ask 
it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3398 to the language proposed to be stricken by 
     amendment No. 3395.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. XXXXXXXXX

       This Act shall become effective 5 days after enactment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3399 to Amendment No. 3398

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment which is at 
the desk, and I ask for it to be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3399 to amendment No. 3398.

  The amendment is as follows:
       In the amendment, strike ``5 days'' and insert ``4 days''.

                Motion To Commit With Amendment No. 3400

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to commit the bill, H.R. 1, to the 
Appropriations Committee, with instructions that are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to commit the 
     bill, H.R. 1, to the Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment 
     numbered 3400.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. ___.

       This Act shall become effective 3 days after enactment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3401

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a first-degree amendment to the 
instructions at the desk, and I ask the Chair to have that reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3401 to the instructions of the motion to commit 
     H.R. 1.

  The amendment is as follows:
       In the amendment, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``2 days''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3402 to Amendment No. 3401

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk, and I ask for it to be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3402 to amendment No. 3401.

  The amendment is as follows:
       In the amendment, strike ``2 days'' and insert ``1 day''.

                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion to the underlying 
bill at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 1, an act 
     making appropriations for the Department of Defense and other 
     departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2011.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Benjamin L. Cardin, Mark 
           Begich, Joe Manchin III, Tom Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Mary Landrieu, Christopher A. Coons, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Jack Reed, Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand, Tom Udall, Bernard Sanders, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse.


                             Flood Control

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy 
with my friend Senator Leahy, who is managing the Senate Supplemental 
Appropriations bill. The bill includes funding and language provisions 
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that will help construct and 
improve crucial flood control projects in areas impacted by Hurricane 
Sandy, including along the Jersey Shore. Mitigation projects along the 
coast are critical to preventing future damage, and that's why I am 
pleased that language is included in the bill to authorize projects for 
construction that are currently in the study phase. This provision will 
expedite flood control efforts in flood-prone areas impacted by 
Hurricane Sandy, and I am pleased Senator Leahy agrees this is a 
valuable initiative.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am pleased to work with Senator Lautenberg on this 
issue. New Jersey, New York, and other States throughout the region 
were devastated by Hurricane Sandy. In particular, flood-prone areas 
and the coastline experienced severe damage. That is why the 
Supplemental Appropriations bill includes funding and language to 
improve damaged projects, construct new projects to prevent future 
damage, and to authorize projects in the study phase for construction, 
provided that the Corps of Engineers determines doing so would cost-
effectively reduce flood and storm damage risks.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Requiring the Corps of Engineers to determine whether 
potential projects in affected areas can cost-effectively reduce flood 
and storm damage risks before receiving construction authorization is a 
valuable goal. However, Hurricane Sandy changed the conditions of many 
projects, which could increase the final cost of those projects. Also, 
many homes and businesses in flood-prone areas were destroyed. This 
could lead to a decrease in the value of property protected by proposed 
projects. Therefore, the combined impact of increased project costs and 
a reduction in the value of property that would be protected by planned 
flood control infrastructure could result in a calculation that shows a 
higher project cost with lower economic benefits. Does the Senator 
agree that the language regarding the cost-effectiveness of flood and 
storm damage efforts under consideration for construction authorization 
is not intended to disqualify projects that

[[Page 17882]]

could have increased costs and decreased economic benefits as a result 
of Hurricane Sandy?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes. The language does not intend for the Corps of 
Engineers to disqualify studies under consideration for construction 
authorization based on increased costs and decreased economic benefits 
as a result of Hurricane Sandy. In addition, the term ``cost-
effectiveness'' does not refer to the benefit to cost ratio typically 
used by the Corps of Engineers.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank Senator Leahy, along with Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, who 
has jurisdiction over the Corps, for their work on this vital bill, 
which would help states affected by Hurricane Sandy recover and prepare 
for future storms. It includes important language to allow projects in 
the study phase to be constructed and does not intend to disqualify 
projects with increased costs and decreased economic benefits as a 
result of Hurricane Sandy. Given that this process is different than 
standard practice, does the Senator agree that the Corps of Engineers 
should submit a report to Congress to explain the process that will be 
implemented?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes. The Corps is directed to submit a report to the 
Committee on Appropriations on its proposed process for determining 
cost-effectiveness, in accordance with the aforementioned intentions, 
no later than 45 days following enactment of this Act.


                      Great Lakes Dredging Funding

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to bring attention to a significant 
disaster situation in the Great Lakes region. As a result of a deadly 
combination of the Midwest drought and an unusually warm winter, the 
Great Lakes are at near record low water levels. The Army Corps of 
Engineers reports that Lakes Michigan and Huron are more than 2 feet 
below their long-term average. Lake Superior is more than 1 foot below 
its long-term average. Keith Kompoltowicz, chief of watershed hydrology 
for the Army Corps of Engineers, has said regarding the Great Lakes 
water levels, ``There is a good chance of setting record lows.'' The 
situation in the Great Lakes has resulted in freighters getting stuck 
in channels, ships carrying reduced loads leading to millions of 
dollars in losses, harbors closing or being threatened with closure, 
and so-called Harbors of Refuge not being able to provide shelter to 
boaters in distress.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I share my colleague's deep concern with 
the low water levels in the Great Lakes. This is, without a doubt, a 
disaster for the communities who rely on our harbors and waterways. The 
Great Lakes provide jobs for more than 800,000 Michigan residents, and 
low water levels in the lakes are threatening those jobs. The Great 
Lakes support a $7 billion fishing industry, and a $16 billion 
recreational boating industry. However, weather disasters this year 
have resulted in water levels in the Great Lakes near record lows. 
Normally we count on spring rains and snow melt-off to raise the level 
of the lakes. But this spring we saw only a 4 inch rise in Lake 
Michigan and Lake Huron, one-third of the normal level. And for the 
first time on record, there was no spring rise in levels of Lake St. 
Clair and Lake Erie. Due in part to the summer heat wave, at the height 
of which every single one of Michigan's 83 counties was declared a 
disaster area, 2012 was also marked by evaporation rates over 50 
percent above average for the 4 largest lakes. There is no question 
that the shipping channels and harbors of the Great Lakes are in 
distress. We cannot reverse the drought, but we can support the 
dredging projects necessary to ensure that the 139 Federal harbors and 
waterways in the Great Lakes region can continue to serve our Nation's 
economy.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. While the water levels are at historic lows in 
Lakes Michigan and Huron, Lake Erie, which my State borders, also has 
water levels below its long-term average. Because the Great Lakes 
navigational system is interconnected, with shipments often moving from 
Duluth to Cleveland to Buffalo, a problem in one harbor can have 
negative impacts across all of the 60 commercial projects in the Great 
Lakes system. The light-loading of ships has repercussions across our 
transportation system with very real impacts on jobs and our 
manufacturing and agricultural sectors. This year's drought across 
Ohio, Michigan, and other parts of the upper-Midwest has been nothing 
short of a natural disaster.
  Mr. LEVIN. In addition to response, recovery and mitigation related 
to Hurricane Sandy damage, I also understand this bill provides funds 
to help respond to other natural disasters. I would ask the manager of 
the bill, Senator Leahy, is that correct?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, that is correct. The Supplemental Appropriations bill 
includes some funding related to natural disasters other than Hurricane 
Sandy.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the near-historic low water levels of the Great 
Lakes caused by drought and mild winters be considered a natural 
disaster?
  Mr. LEAHY. The bill does not define ``natural disaster,'' but the 
near record water level lows in the Great Lakes caused by drought and 
unusually warm weather leading to increased evaporation are certainly 
contributing to significant drought-like consequences at Great Lakes 
ports and harbors.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. I am pleased the bill includes $821 
million to dredge federal navigation channels and repair damage to 
Corps projects nationwide related to natural disasters. Would 
federally-authorized Great Lakes harbors and channels be eligible for 
that funding?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes. The funding is tied to estimates of natural disaster 
damages relayed to Congress by the Corps, however, the funding is not 
earmarked to specific projects. The Corps utilizes this funding to 
restore essential project functions based on the Corps' priority of the 
damages. In that context, Great Lakes ports and harbors would be 
eligible for the funding.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for his clarification. The Army Corps 
of Engineers estimates that $35 million could be utilized in operations 
and maintenance funding just to restore minimum operations in the Great 
Lakes system. I am hopeful that $35 million of the $821 million for 
dredging will be directed to Great Lakes projects. I thank the Senator 
for his work on this important legislation, and I thank my friends for 
their support in addressing the low water level impacts on the Great 
Lakes navigational system through this supplemental appropriations 
bill.

                          ____________________