Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I come to speak on S. 415, the ``Small Business Disaster Reform Act of 2013.'' As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, as well as a senator from a state hard hit by disasters, I am proud that yesterday our committee reported out S. 415 favorably on a bipartisan basis. In particular, Section 2 of S. 415 modifies the SBA requirement that borrowers must use their personal home as collateral for business disaster loans less than $200,000. This is a very important provision for businesses impacted by natural and manmade disasters. For that reason, I want to provide additional information on the need to enact this provision. In terms of the legislative history of Section 2, a similar provision passed the House of Representatives twice in 2009: on October 29, 2009 by a vote of 389-32 as Section 801 of H.R. 3854 and again by voice vote on November 6, 2009 as Section 2 of H.R. 3743. The same provision that is in S. 415 passed the Senate 62-32 on December 28, 2012 as Section 501 of H.R. 1, the Hurricane Sandy Supplemental. However, it was not included in H.R. 152, the House-passed ``Disaster Relief Appropriations Act'' that subsequently was enacted into law. Despite the setback earlier this year, I remind my colleagues that this provision has a history of bipartisan Congressional support and has previously passed both chambers of Congress. This Congress, we also have significant bipartisan support. S. 415 has six cosponsors: Senators Thad Cochran, Roger Wicker, Heidi Heitkamp, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Pryor, and Ben Cardin. The House companion to S. 415, H.R. 1974, was introduced by Representative Patrick Murphy last month and has 11 cosponsors: Reps. Mick Mulvaney, Judy Chu, Mike Coffman, Ted Deutch, Peter King, Alan Nunnelee, Donald M. Payne, Jr., Cedric Richmond, Tom Cole, Trey Radel, and Frederica Wilson. While I understand the need to secure the loans and minimize risk to the taxpayers; SBA has at its disposal multiple ways to secure these loans. If business owners have literally lost everything, requiring a $400,000 home as collateral for a $150,000 loan is maddening especially when other repayment options are available. One can understand that requirement for loans of $750,000 or $2 million. For the smaller disaster loans, however, it is a non-starter for many businesses we have heard from. The bill requires the SBA to seek other business assets--such as commercial real estate, equipment, or inventory--before requiring a primary residence be used as collateral. I want to reiterate that Section 2 is very clear that these business assets should be of equal or greater value than the amount of the loan. Also, to ensure that this is a targeted improvement, the bill also includes additional language that this bill in no way requires SBA to reduce the amount or quality of collateral it seeks on these types of loans. I want to especially thank my former Ranking Member Olympia Snowe for working with me to improve upon previous legislation on this particular issue. The provision that I am re-introducing, as part of this disaster legislation, is a direct result of discussions with both her and other stakeholders late last year. I believe that this bill is better because of improvements that came out these productive discussions. Furthermore, SBA has repeatedly said publicly and in testimony before my committee that it will not decline a borrower for a lack of collateral. According to a July 14, 2010 correspondence between SBA and my office, the agency notes that ``SBA is an aggressive lender and its credit thresholds are well below traditional bank standards . . . SBA does not decline loans for insufficient collateral.'' SBA's current practice of making loans is based upon an individual/business demonstrating the ability to repay and income. The agency declines borrowers for an inability to repay the loan. In regards to collateral, SBA follows traditional lending practices that seek the ``best available collateral.'' Collateral is required for physical loans over $14,000 and Economic Injury Disaster Loans, EIDL, loans over $5,000. SBA takes real estate as collateral when it is available, but as I stated, the agency will not decline a loan for lack of collateral. Instead it requires borrowers to pledge what is available. However, in practice, SBA is requiring borrowers to put up a personal residence worth $300,000 or $400,000 for a business loan of $200,000 or less when there are other assets available for SBA. This provision does not substantively change SBA's current lending practices and it will not have a significant cost. I believe that this legislation would not trigger direct spending nor would it have a significant impact on the subsidy rate for SBA disaster loans. Currently for every $1 loaned out, it costs approximately 10 cents on the dollar. Most importantly, this bill will greatly improve the SBA disaster loan programs for businesses ahead of future disasters. If a business comes to the SBA for a loan of less than $200,000 to make immediate repairs or secure working capital, they can be assured that they will not have to put up their personal home if SBA determines that the business has other assets to go towards the loan. However, if businesses seek larger loans than $200,000 or if their business assets are not suitable collateral, then the current requirements will still apply. This ensures that very small businesses and businesses seeking smaller amounts of recovery loans are able to secure these loans without significant burdens on their personal property. For the business owners we have spoken to, this provides some badly needed clarity to one of the Federal government's primary tools for responding to disasters. To be clear though, while I do not want to see SBA tie up too much of a business' collateral, I also believe that if a business is willing and able to put up business assets towards its disaster loan, SBA should consider that first before attempting to bring in personal residences. It is unreasonable for SBA to ask business owners operating in very different business environments post-disaster to jeopardize not just their business but also their home. Loans of $200,000 or less are also the loans most likely to be repaid by the business so personal homes should be collateral of last resort in instances where a business can demonstrate the ability to repay the loan and that it has other assets. As I have mentioned, there are also safeguards in the provision that ensures that this provision will not reduce the quality of collateral required by SBA for these disaster loans nor will it reduce the quality of the SBA's general collateral requirements. These changes will assist the SBA in cutting down on waste, fraud and abuse of these legislative reforms. In order to further assist the SBA, I believe it is important to clarify what types of business assets we understand they should review. For example, I understand that SBA's current lending practices consider the following business assets as suitable collateral: commercial real estate; machinery and equipment; business inventory; and furniture and fixtures. At our markup of S. 415 yesterday, there were concerns raised by some Minority members of our committee regarding the impact of this provision. One argument was that SBA has not seized many personal homes in the last five years. However, the SBA has been more aggressive since 2011 on foreclosures--sending out 113 foreclosure letters since then. This year alone they have seized 4 homes in Minnesota, Virginia, Illinois, and Texas. Furthermore, borrowers my office has spoken to are less concerned about a personal home being seized than they are about liens tying up personal property and the general roadblock this requirement sets up in applying for SBA disaster assistance. This requirement is discouraging successful businesses from applying to SBA and causing current applicants to withdraw their applications. As of May 2013, 35 percent of Sandy business applications were withdrawn, most citing burdensome lending requirements like this as the main factor. Also, it is my understanding that another concern that has been cited was that business equipment depreciates over time so this is a riskier asset for the Federal government than a personal home. This argument, however, is false. As it relates to equipment, the SBA factors in depreciation when considering collateral from potential borrowers. They value equipment or inventory significantly less than real estate, due to depreciation. If equipment is not deemed a suitable asset to collateralize the loan, SBA will not take it. Also, Section 2 still allows SBA to determine the appropriate business asset if not the home. It is not specific to equipment. Other assets the SBA could consider include commercial real estate; machinery and equipment; business inventory; and furniture and fixtures. Yet another concern that was raised was that, in utilizing business assets instead of personal homes, this makes it tougher for SBA to recover funds in the event of a default. As I previously mentioned, the SBA factors in depreciation and potential recovery in the event of a default when considering collateral from potential borrowers. SBA will not make a loan if it deems the business assets being offered will be difficult to recover or that it does not have sufficient value to collateralize the loan. Also, again the bill does not prohibit homes outright nor require business assets as collateral. It strikes a delicate balance to instead require the SBA to review if suitable business assets are available before using a personal home. If business assets are sufficient, SBA can use them. If business assets are not sufficient and the borrower is unwilling to put up their home, the SBA will not make the loan. Lastly, it was also put forward that that if Congress allows business assets to be used as collateral instead of homes, this increases the likelihood of defaults. Again, this argument is false. In an April 1, 2013 letter to my office, the SBA Inspector General confirmed that there are no findings relative to business assets increasing defaults. The Inspector General wrote that it has ``. . . conducted numerous reviews of key aspects of the SBA Disaster Assistance Program; however, there are no specific findings relative to the `type' of collateral secured relative to disaster assistance loans.'' Furthermore, the Inspector General also confirmed that the SBA is still required to secure the loans and Section 2 does not change that. The Inspector General wrote that ``. . . Section 2 does not remove SBA's policy for securing loans with collateral equivalent to 100 percent equity of the loan. Section 2 also explicitly provides that nothing in the Section can be construed to require the Administrator to reduce the amount of collateral required to secure the loan.'' Again, if the business does not have sufficient business assets or the SBA deems them risky, Section 2 does not change their ability to not make the loan. In closing, I would like to note that Section 2 addresses a key issue that is serving as a roadblock to business owners interested in applying for smaller SBA disaster loans. After the multiple disasters that hit the Gulf Coast, my staff has consistently heard from business owners, discouraged from applying for SBA disaster loans. When we have inquired further on the main reasons behind this hesitation, the top concern related to SBA requiring business owners to put up their personal home as collateral for smaller SBA disaster loans for their business. So let me provide you with two examples of businesses impacted by this requirement. The first example is LiemCo, a Long Island, NY specialty beverage repair service with 15 employees. Think of ``Starbucks"-type espresso machines in restaurants and coffee shops--LiemCo fixes them. The company is family-owned and the son of the owners, Dominic Chieco runs it. His parents are still partial owners and he pays them a quarterly draw which serves as their retirement income. Ownership is being gradually transferred to Dominic. Prior to Hurricane Sandy, they did everything right. Dominic moved his vehicles to higher ground; loaded key inventory in the trucks-- inventory with high value or long delivery times; raised items to 6 feet above the floor; purchased extra gas; and withdrew $5,000 in cash in case electricity went out at the banks. According to their local Small Business Development Center, SBDC, they are well run and these preparations show that. Despite that, Hurricane Sandy flooded his building about 4 to 5 feet. The water went down after a couple of days but power was out for 3 weeks. The day after it came back on, a Nor'easter snow storm knocked out power for another week and a half. This caused physical property damages of more than $250,000. Dominic kept employees on payroll--full time--throughout recovery. He could not give them the customary Christmas bonus but once they re-opened after Christmas, he gave 1 employee their bonus each week. Dominic's biggest concern was the collateral requirement from SBA. His building is valued at $1.2 million and only carried a $150,000 mortgage. The parents are still partial owners, so notwithstanding the value of the building, SBA still wanted a lien against the parents' home for the guarantee for a $200,000 loan. This bothered them tremendously as it was their retirement security. Much of this would have been eliminated if the collateral position on the parents' home had not been required when sufficient collateral existed with the business. Another business impacted by this burdensome requirement is Water Street Bistro in Madisonville, LA. Water Street Bistro is a small family-owned restaurant overlooking the sail boats on the Tchefuncte River just across the street. Tony Monroe and his wife Constance have owned their business for 9 years and have about 9 employees. Monroe started his culinary career at Cafe Sbisa in New Orleans and then went to Colorado before returning to the place he was born and raised. Fortunately, after Hurricane Katrina, the Monroe's escaped damage to their restaurant and did not need to apply for SBA assistance. However, this was not the case following Hurricane Isaac. Hurricane Isaac brought 6 to 10 inches of water into their restaurant which caused them to close their business for 3 weeks. The Monroe's had to start all over and buy all new food and replace equipment, such as refrigerators, which cost around $30,000. In addition to the physical damage to their property, the Monroe's could not pay their staff during this time. Mr. and Mrs. Monroe's biggest concern in applying to the SBA was the collateral requirement. SBA required them to pledge their family home for a loan of around $40,000 to $45,000. Once they found out the requirement for pledging primary residence was firm, the Monroe's decided not to pursue the loan. The Monroe's are in their 60's and could not imagine using their home--valued around $200,000 to $250,000--as collateral. They ended up doing all of the repairs, for the restaurant, on their own because they could not afford to pay for these services. I thank the Chair and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the April 1, 2013, letter from the SBA Inspector General and other letters of support for S. 415 be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will meet on June 17, 2013, at 5:30 p.m. in the Mansfield Room of the Capitol (S-207) to hold a markup on Committee legislation. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will meet on Thursday, June 20, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 428A Russell Senate Office building to hold a roundtable entitled ``Sequestration: Small Business Contractors Weathering the Storm in a Climate of Fiscal Uncertainty.''

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1222, the Child Citizenship Act, for lawful adoptees.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am going to speak about this amendment in just a minute, but first I want to respond to Senator Thune. I wish we could get a vote on my amendment as well as this one because I would like to vote and strongly express my objection to his amendment. I will comment for just a minute. I chair the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee that is actually building the fence. The money that builds it comes through my committee. I have looked at the fence they are trying to build. It is shocking to me, and would be shocking to everyone in America if they could see it. No matter if we build a single fence or double fence with spacing in between, it will be easy for people to get over it or under it. I will vote against Senator Thune's amendment because I am not going to waste taxpayer money on a dumb fence, and that is what his fence would be. We need to build a smart fence. A fence is not just a physical structure which can be built out of a variety of different materials with or without barbed wire on the top. A smart fence is what Senator McCain and I want to build. Since he is from Arizona, I think he knows a little bit more about this than the Senator from South Dakota who doesn't have a border with Mexico but only with Canada, and that is quite different. If Senator McCain were on the Senate floor, I think he would say we absolutely want to build a barrier of security, and this would be a combination of a physical structure that is built to the great standards we can with the technology that will actually shut down illegal immigration. It is not correct for anybody listening to this debate to think that people on the Democratic side of this aisle or people supporting this bill do not want to secure the border. Nothing could be further from the truth. I may be overridden, and people may vote against it, but I am going to hold the position that we cannot waste billions and billions of dollars building a fence that doesn't hold anybody on one side or the other. We have wasted enough taxpayer money. While I didn't come here to talk about this at this moment, I am going to talk about it for just a few minutes. This immigration bill is about fixing a broken system, not dumping taxpayer money down a rat hole. And some people want to talk about building a fence. I went to look at the fence. I have been in tunnels that go under the fence. I watched people climb over the fence, and so has anybody who actually lives along the border, which is why Senator McCain's voice is so important in this debate. No one should think that Senator McCain, who has been the leader on border security in this Senate for 20 years, is not interested in building a strong fence. His State gets affected--just like California and Texas--more directly than any of us. The Presiding Officer knows geography well. So for my colleagues to come to the floor and suggest that the eight people who put this bill together are not interested in border security is just truly false, misleading, and unfortunate. That is what this debate is going to be about. I have respect for my colleague. I absolutely oppose his amendment, but I am going to come back and give some more facts about how we are building a smart fence, how we are going to keep using new technologies to keep people out that we don't want and keep people in we want to keep in. I want to say one thing about this immigration bill as well. We are the most open society in the world. It is a great source of pride to our country. We are an open, transparent democracy that is trying to create a broad middle class not only here in America but around the world, and trade and commerce are essential. We need secure borders that open for trade and create jobs. As chairman of this committee, I am not going to waste more money building something that doesn't work just so some people can get a headline in their local press. It is just not going to happen. So we are going to put money in this bill to build a smart barrier that is going to have all the new technology we need to track down illegal immigrants and close that off. Then we are also--which is in this bill--going to use new technology, such as what we have seen on television and these fancy shows, to find the 40 percent of immigrants who came here under visas and overstayed, for the queue so they can pay their taxes, learn English, and become citizens. I will come back and speak more on the record about this issue, and I am sure the Senator from South Dakota will have a response. Happily, I don't think there is an objection to my amendment, the citizenship for lawful adoptees. I am very happy I have the cosponsorship of Senator Coats, Senator Blunt, and Senator Klobuchar. This amendment does not go to the heart of the immigration bill, but it does touch the hearts of many parents and children who have been caught up in a very unfortunate situation. A couple of years ago Senator Nickles from Oklahoma, whom I had the great pleasure of working with across the aisle on many important adoption bills, and I passed a bill that is very important to the adoption community. The bill basically says when a child is adopted overseas--we mostly do adoptions in America, but we have anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 adoptions internationally. When somebody adopts a child overseas, it is very expensive, time consuming, and more bureaucratic than it needs to be. Several years ago our bill said once that process is over and the adoption is finalized, those children will automatically become citizens. It was a great step forward because now we have at least 10,000 to 20,000 kids who are all various ages--infants, teenagers, all the way up to 18--who, once they come to the United States, don't have to go through another process to get their citizenship; otherwise, we would obviously have a backlog of millions. This is sort of giving the adopted kids a little express lane, which is what we wanted to do, and we did. Unfortunately, when we pass bills, many times the bureaucracy gets ahold of the law and starts to interpret it in a different way than we wanted and starts throwing barriers in the way. Simply put, my amendment, which is supported by the Members I said, is going to fix three important provisions in that law. First, it says if a child is adopted into this country and later commits a misdemeanor or felony--just as if it was a biological child who committed a misdemeanor or felony--that person would not be deported. Deportation is not an option for adoptees. It may be an option for illegal immigrants but not children who have been adopted by American citizens. So we are going to correct that. They are going to have the full penalties against them. They can go to jail for a long time. They can do whatever the law says, but deportation is not one of the options. There have been very sad circumstances where adults were brought here as children, but the parents failed to get their certification. Many of them have been deported back to a country they never lived in a day, and they don't speak the language. As far as they know, in their mind they are completely American, even if they did know their country of origin. It is very unfortunate, and it has happened. This is going to bring help to maybe dozens and hundreds--it is not going to be more than that--of families to prevent any deportation of adoptees in the future. Secondly, it will clarify the residency requirement. Over time the Child Citizenship Act has been misinterpreted so that the adopted children of Americans living abroad--particularly for military, diplomatic, and other reasons--do not receive automatic citizenship upon entering the United States. We intended, when we passed our bill, for this to apply to our military families and diplomats. As a result of serving in a foreign country, they have the opportunity to take in a child who is completely homeless and has no parents. They are doing God's work, and many times they end up in some bureaucratic haggling. So we are going to try to correct that. Finally, it clarifies that when parents are required to travel overseas to adopt a child--some countries require two parents, some countries require one. Whether the country requires one or two parents, one will be sufficient to meet our standard. If two are required, then two have to go; but if only one is required, one is enough to meet our standard. There have been months and months and years and years where parents who go through all of this trouble to do something they really believe God has called them to do--to adopt a homeless or unparented child or a sibling group--have come home to find that their own government, which would be our government, is nitpicking this law to prevent them from getting an easy path forward. I hope there will be no opposition to this amendment. I am happy if we are required to have 51 votes or 60 votes. I will take any vote of any number for this bill. I hope the Members will support it. I am sorry I have to oppose Senator Thune's amendment, but I will be opposing all amendments that I don't think support the underlying nature of a smart barrier, which is a fence that is both physical and virtual and has new technologies that will actually do the job. I could not even express how shocking it was to go down to the border and see the number of tunnels that were built under the fence. If we build three fences, they will still build tunnels under those fences. They could build four fences. I am very sorry, but I am not going to waste people's money on that. We are going to figure out a way to use technology to find these improper entrances to our country and close them down. It may be an actual fence in some places. It is going to be a virtual fence in other places. It is going to be special technology, lasers, helicopters, infrared, et cetera, et cetera. Senator McCain actually had a list of the equipment that we intend to buy with taxpayer money, and I am going to come to the floor and maybe spend some hours reading off the list so people know about this. We most certainly are not saying no to a fence because we don't want to secure the border. We are saying no to the fence because it is a waste of money, and we don't have any money to be wasted around here. We need smart technologies. Now, I am going to read Senator Thune's entire amendment because I have not read the details of it. I do believe I will be opposing it. It may be that his words did not appropriately say what his amendment does, but if it is an amendment that requires a complete fence and not a virtual fence, I will oppose it. If his amendment says I want a smart fence and we need to build more of a smart fence, then I will support it. I want everyone to know there are going to be amendments about the fence, and this is the position I will take. I will try to encourage as many people as I can to assume the position I have because I think it is the right position, and I think the taxpayers will support this. We want a secure border that is smart with the smartest technology possible, not one that just spends untold amounts of money decade after decade and fail and fail again. I yield the floor, and I see the Senator is still on the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would just simply respond by saying I know the Senator is quite sincere, and he is correct. I voted for the dumb fence once. I am not going to do it again because I learned from my mistake. I went down there to look at it and realized we could build two dumb fences or three dumb fences and it would not work. I am simply not going to waste the money to do something I know will not work. So if somebody else wants to vote for the dumb fence for the second or third time, go right ahead. But I was raised such that when you make a mistake, admit it and then fix it. I intend to fix it. The fence we are going to build--Senator Carper, Senator Coburn, Senator McCain, and I--is a real and virtual fence that is actually going to work. We will have further debate on this issue. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that all time be allocated equally as previously agreed to.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the chairman and the manager of this bill for his support of this particular amendment, which I hope is going to be noncontroversial. It has to do with clarifying some technical parts of the law dealing with adoptees and how they are able to claim citizenship. It does not have anything really to do with the larger pieces of this bill, but it is an opportunity to provide help and support to thousands of children, young people, and even adults who come to this country through the wonderful process of adoption, to clear up a couple of matters. I will talk about that in just a minute, but I want to associate myself with the extraordinarily powerful comments of the Senator from Arizona John McCain. Without his leadership and without his strong knowledge of the issue we are dealing with, I do not think the bill would be on the floor of the Senate, and I do not think we would have a chance to be voting on this important piece of legislation. He particularly--along with Senator Rubio and Senator Graham but particularly Senator McCain--has spent his adult life on the border in Arizona and has been in public office and has served this country so admirably in so many ways and fashions and understands this issue just about as well if not better than anyone on the floor. I have had the pleasure of working with him over many years to secure the border, as the chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. I can attest that what he says is actually true and factual. The border is not as secure as it could be, but it is significantly stronger and more secure than it was just 5 years ago, let alone 10 years ago. He is also correct that we can make improvements on border security. Hopefully we will as this bill moves through, but the underlying bill itself takes huge steps in that direction by applying new resources to the technologies that are going to help us secure the border. Anyone who has been to the border--and I have traveled there to see with my own eyes, at the invitation of Senator McCain, which was a greet eye-opener to me. As a Senator from Louisiana, the only borders I am aware of are water borders. We do not have land borders like Arizona and California and Texas and other States, so it was the first time I had seen such a thing. I was absolutely amazed and somewhat taken aback by how quickly a person could scale the fence, how quickly tunnels can be built under the fence. I do not think some of my friends who are on the Republican side who are really concerned--and we all are, but they talk a lot about it. I am not sure they do as much as they talk about it, but that is my view. But they talk a lot about spending taxpayer money wisely. Putting more agents on the border and building a higher fence is not going to do it. Senator McCain is absolutely correct. What is going to do it is smart technology leveraged with the resources he has written in his bill. So if we want to secure the border more, which is my intention--and as chair of this committee, I intend to continue leading in that way, both our southern border and our northern border, as well as providing the Coast Guard with the resources they need to interdict drug smugglers who are coming into this country. I learned the other day--I would like to share this with people who potentially could be listening--that the Coast Guard has intercepted more illegal drugs than the entire land operation last year. They intercept drugs at a wholesale level before they even get to the country. This is about creating a perimeter that secures us against things we don't want to come into this country--illegal workers, illegal drugs, or illegal human trafficking, which is also a concern to many people in Louisiana and around the country. It is also important to have a border that allows for trade and commerce. We cannot lock ourselves away from the world. What Senator McCain is saying is so true. We have to be the smartest Nation on the Earth to protect our borders because we are the most open society and a model of what an open society should look like. We have to have that balance of security and trade. This is important for every American. I say to my colleague how proud I am of the Senator, and I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would follow his good and steady advice. Yes, this bill could be improved on the floor of the Senate, but it should not be undermined with rhetoric that makes no sense. I am hearing that from some colleagues on the other side. I would hope they would have the good judgment to follow the very wise and mature leadership of the Senator from Arizona. I want to call my colleagues' attention to an amendment Senator Coats and I have filed, and I am very grateful for his leadership. I know of no opposition to this amendment. I am hoping that after lunch the caucuses can meet and we can maybe take up a few noncontroversial amendments that seek to clarify some provisions in the law that could be helpful to a few hundred and potentially even a few thousand Americans who desperately need our help. It is one amendment, the Citizenship for Lawful Adoptees amendment, supported by Senator Klobuchar, Senator Coats, and me. We hope there will be many more cosponsors. It does three simple but important things. First, a couple of years ago I helped lead the fight--with many of my colleagues still serving here--to pass the intercountry adoption act or the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. That was a very significant breakthrough in the adoption community. As my colleagues know, I am the chair of the adoption caucus. We have Democrats and Republicans who support the idea that every child in the world needs a family. We try to minimize and reduce barriers to children getting the family they need--either staying with the one to whom they were born, trying to help that family or, if they are abandoned, neglected, or grossly abused, by finding them another family. Governments do a lot of things well, but raising children isn't one of them. Parents raise children, and a responsible, loving adult is necessary for a child's physical, emotional, and spiritual development. Both our faith and the new science tell us that. It is really nondebatable. A group of us worked on this, and we are proud of the progress we are making. One part of this amendment would make it clear that if a person had been adopted and is now an adult but because of some circumstances never went through the process of citizenship before this law--because when we passed the law 10 years ago, any child now adopted overseas is automatically a citizen. It is as if the child was born to an American. That is what happens if you are overseas and you give birth to a child--the child is automatically American. You don't need to go through the immigration process to bring your child to the United States. We made it the same for adopted children because that truly is what adoption is like. It is like having your own biological child. So we made a great step forward, and we said that at the time for anybody under 18. Well, what has happened is, before 2000, for people older than 18--and they might be adults now; they are clearly in their thirties, forties, or fifties. They were adopted as infants or young children, but their paperwork never went through. Some of these individuals are being deported. It would be like deporting a child who came from Korea at 6 months. They have never spoken a word of Korean and have never been to Korea. If they were adopted from Korea, they shouldn't be deported to Korea. If they have committed some misdemeanor or even a felony, they should be penalized under the laws of the United States. They could be put in jail for life. For criminal activity, they should be treated like any other American. Deportation is not and should not be an option for this very small group. This amendment makes that clear. It also clarifies a residency requirement. The Child Citizenship Act was passed with overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats. Don Nickles, as I recall, the Senator from Oklahoma, was the lead sponsor on this bill. He was a very strong supporter of many of the things of which I was speaking. He is no longer here, but his work lives on. The Child Citizenship Act also requires that Americans living abroad for military, diplomatic, and other reasons do not receive automatic citizenship upon entering the United States. When we wrote this bill, we intended for that to be the case, but because we put the word ``reside'' instead of ``permanently physically present,'' we have to clarify that. With that minor change, it will basically say that if you are a diplomat living overseas and you adopt a child through a lawful, legal adoption process, this act applies to you. The third thing it will do is what we call the one-parent fix. There are many countries--and we hope Russia one day will again open. We hope Guatemala will one day get its 112 cases that we are still waiting for moved through very quickly. Some of the countries are requiring--and rightly so--that parents come to the country to adopt the child physically and then bring the child to the United States. In the past things could be done through agents or through adoption agencies, et cetera. I am perfectly fine with that. Many adoption advocates are. Parents should travel to the country. My sister did an intercountry adoption with Russia, so I am fairly familiar with our family's experience, which was quite a joy--an added expense but a joy to travel to the orphanage. And some Members of Congress have adopted children and gone through that process. The problem is that our agencies are saying--which is not according to the law, I believe--that if both parents don't travel, that adoption is not automatic. That was never the intention of our law. We are simply saying that if one parent travels and it is a legal adoption, that law still applies. It doesn't have to be both. There are three minor changes to this bill which have helped so many children come to the United States, and they have been such a joy to their parents. It is a help to the world in providing homes and loving support for kids who need it. It takes another barrier, another headache, and another heartache away from them for us to encourage adoption of all orphaned children and unparented children in the world who need families. I see the leader of the bill on the other side, the Senator from Utah. I would hope he could also be a cosponsor, if he would, and take a look at this amendment and give his support. I know there are many people in Utah, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Indiana whom this could potentially help. It is not going to touch millions, but it will touch thousands of people who I think could benefit. I will have several other amendments that I think can tighten the underlying bill, particularly for E-Verify, which Senator McCain spoke about. I wanted to get this hopefully small, uncontroversial amendment out of the way to help this small group and then turn my attention to some other things that are very important in the other underlying parts of the bill. I ask that whenever this amendment may be considered, the Senator from Utah would ask me personally, through the Chair, if he would consider putting this amendment on the short list to be reconciled potentially today. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will soon bid farewell to our congressional fellow, Coast Guard CDR. George Kovatch, who has served the Committee on Appropriations over the past 3 years. Unfortunately, Commander Kovatch is retiring, so not only is his departure a loss for the Committee on Appropriations, but it is also a loss for the Coast Guard. Commander Kovatch has been detailed to the committee from the U.S. Coast Guard since 2010 and is a key member of our professional staff. Commander Kovatch performed admirably in his role on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. He did everything we asked of him, with pinpoint accuracy, and always beat the deadlines given to him. I would also add that he served the committee during interesting times, perhaps more interesting than he imagined when he accepted the job. He was here for the Deepwater Horizon oilspill, the Times Square bombing attempt, the air cargo printer scare, Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy, and the Boston marathon bombing. The Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee has greatly benefited from the experience Commander Kovatch gained as a Coast Guard officer, in particular his insights into the operations of a complex military organization that is combined with a large domestic agency. He has superb analytical skills that have been critical in our review of a $39 billion budget request and in developing complex spreadsheets that synthesize funding issues into easily understood documents we have used in hearings, closed briefings, in full committee, and on the floor. He made critical recommendations that were adopted to improve key components within the Department of Homeland Security, most notably carefully overseeing integrity efforts following the rapid hiring of agents and officers at Customs and Border Protection as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ensure that all agents, but especially new hires, receive comprehensive training in ethics and public integrity. His unqualified professionalism, perception, superb analytic focus and technical skills, combined with a keen sense of humor, a cool head, and a modesty rarely seen on Capitol Hill, have helped keep the momentum for these bills moving forward. His high standards of professionalism and thoroughness are beyond reproach, and his contributions have been highly valued. Through all of this, George maintained the decorum and professionalism that we have all come to expect from our military officer corps, and he has represented the Coast Guard with the highest integrity and competence. Commander Kovatch has served me, this subcommittee, and the Senate well. We are sorry to see him leave and will miss him as our colleague but are glad to count him as a friend. Each of us on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee wish George all the best as he moves forward in the next phase of his career, where we anticipate seeing great things of him in the coming years.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I join the small business community throughout our country in mourning the death of Mr. Henry T. ``Hank'' Wilfong, Jr., president of the National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses, NASDB. Mr. Wilfong was a valued partner in promoting, improving, and increasing opportunities for firms owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. He not only was a CPA, with an MBA from UCLA, he also served in a number of capacities for Presidents, Governors, and local municipalities. Most notably, Mr. Wilfong was the first Black Pasadena City Councilman. He was also a three-time Presidential appointee, which included the Small Business Administration's Associate Administrator of the 8(a) Program. Later, he founded NASDB, a trade organization representing over 300 minority, women-owned, service-disabled, veteran-owned, and HUBZone small businesses. Whether it was his advocacy for parity among the set-aside programs or his passion for strengthening the women-owned small business and 8(a) Programs, we have all been touched by his legacy, which promotes equal opportunity for all small businesses to succeed and live the American dream of entrepreneurship. With his passing, we also lose a U.S. Army Korean War veteran. He was a fighter his entire life, and we are all grateful for his service to our country, both in the military and as an advocate. Our deepest condolences go out to his family and all those whose lives he touched. We will greatly miss Hank Wilfong, Jr., who served as the voice for so many small businesses that deserved to be heard.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will meet on June 13, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 428A, Russell Senate Office Building to hold a markup of pending legislation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I object. Reserving the right to object, I have some difficulty with the amendment the Senator from Arizona wishes to discuss. I have been trying to get a vote on amendment No. 1113 on flood insurance, and one of the Members from the other side is holding it up. So until we get things worked out--and I hope the Senator from Arizona will appreciate the predicament we are in. I am happy for the Senator to discuss his amendment, but to call up an amendment and to then vote on it, I would have to object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I do not like at all objecting to the McCain amendment, but I am compelled to because I have been literally trying for several weeks now--not just on this bill but the previous bill--to get a vote, just a vote. I will even take a 60-vote threshold. I am not asking for a 53-vote threshold; I will accept a 60-vote threshold on an amendment that will make it clear that we could grandfather in flood insurance rates until an affordability study that was supposed to be done is done. The interesting thing about this is that my amendment has no score. It wouldn't cost the Federal Government anything if this amendment were to pass. It is a zero score. It simply delays for 3 years a certain category of flood insurance premium until an affordability study can be conducted. It is a zero score. Unfortunately, the Senator from Pennsylvania, to my knowledge, is still holding up this amendment. So I know there are other Republicans who would like to offer amendments, but I am going to object to the offering or voting on any Republican amendments until the Senator from Pennsylvania allows me to have a vote on my amendment. I hate to be here because I don't like being in this position, but I have no choice because I can't even get the Republicans to vote on the flood insurance amendment. They can vote no. The amendment may not pass. I think I have the 60 votes to pass it. I hope it will. We have explained it. It is important not just to Louisiana but to New York, California, New Jersey, and even Virginia has some issues. Please understand, because I have a lot of respect for Senator Coburn--he and I work together on the Homeland Security Committee. I know this program has to be self-sustaining over time. No one depends on it to be self-sustaining more than the people in Florida and Louisiana and California. But there is a right way to get it self- sustaining and there is a wrong way. The wrong way is going to blow up the dreams of people who built their homes according to official flood maps, who did everything they were supposed to do under the official flood maps, and then when those maps changed, their rates then can go up 25 percent, compounded for the next 5 years, not only pricing them out of the market but making their homes unsellable, and it affects banks in these communities. This is not just a Louisiana issue. I am proud to advocate so much for my State that when people come here and see me, they say: Oh, there she goes again, advocating for Louisiana. I wear that as a badge of honor. Let me be clear. My State has the 32 lowest kinds of rates of insurance on these claims. I am not even in the top three. This is affecting States--and I read them out earlier. Let me just say for the record that the top 10 States affected are Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New York, Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Alaska, New Hampshire, Illinois, Michigan, West Virginia, Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, California, and Ohio. These are the States with the highest premiums now, and they could double or triple--actually almost triple--in the next 5 years. Maybe some of these rates need to go up. Interestingly, when the recalculations are done, some of the rates around the country will go down. I am not disagreeing with that. What I am disagreeing with is the rapid rate in which it is going to happen, and it is going to have catastrophic effects on many communities--not all but many--and I happen to represent some of those on which it will. So my realtors have asked me to stand up for this. My homebuilders have called with concerns. My community bankers are very concerned. I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Mississippi. I know they are doing their very best job to move this bill forward. I think they have been quite fair, giving people on both sides an opportunity for amendments. I have been very patient. I have not objected to many amendments. The irony of this is that even the Toomey amendment--the Senator from Pennsylvania, my friend, who was going to end a program that was vitally important to my State, I even allowed him to have a vote on that. I mean, it is a terrible amendment for Louisiana. We were happy we beat the amendment, but I even allowed him to have a debate. I could have stopped it. I am one Senator here. One Senator can stop anything. But I am not trying to stop this, I am just trying to advance a vote on flood insurance. So maybe Senator Coburn and Senator McCain can be more convincing to their colleague from Pennsylvania than I have been. But I will just say for the record that if I have to stay on the floor until the end of the week, I will have to stay here, but I will object to any Republican amendment until we get a vote on the Landrieu-Vitter, et al., Schumer, Gillibrand, Menendez--and our good friend Senator Lautenberg who just passed was also a supporter. I would like to keep his name on it, if I could. I yield the floor, and I am very sorry, I say to my colleague from Oklahoma.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I object to that as well, but I know the Senator wants to speak about it.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I object. May I say something? First of all----

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would ask the Senator, does he know that some of us are very sympathetic with the amendments he is offering, and does he know some of us would actually really like to vote on some of those amendments? I am sure he is aware. Is he aware that I am sorry that I have to object, but it is the only way I can get my amendment up.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, may I ask the good Senator from Oklahoma, since he has talked about three amendments, may I ask unanimous consent for my amendment, to see if anybody would object to it?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will try to do this in less than 3 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and the following amendments be made pending en bloc: Landrieu No. 1113, Johnson No. 1117, Cardin No. 1159, and Grassley No. 1097; that the time until 5 p.m. today be equally divided and controlled in the usual form and that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on the amendments listed; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote; that no second- degree amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes and that the amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold. I would also like to add that I would not object personally to having one of Senator Coburn's amendments added to this list, but this is the list I was given to ask unanimous consent for--just four amendments, two on flood insurance and the Grassley amendment on freedom of information regarding EPA. So we would have votes, all of them requiring a 60-vote threshold, with both sides having a side-by-side, which we sometimes do in this body so if someone wants to vote no they can then have something to vote yes for. This is the most reasonable way I could present this list to help us get a vote on flood insurance and another important amendment to Senator Grassley, a Republican. I am a Democrat, Senator Grassley is a Republican, so it is very balanced on each side. So I am asking unanimous consent to try to get a vote this afternoon.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania, then I will relinquish the floor to the managers of the bill because it is their responsibility and they have been doing a great job trying to help us get through the farm bill. I wish to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania because this is real progress. He said he will not object to a vote on our amendment on flood insurance. I appreciate that because I know he has strong objections to it. I may not win the vote, but the people in my State have asked me to do everything I can to fight for them. This is a very serious issue in the State of Louisiana, in Texas, in Florida, in Rhode Island, in Maine, in Massachusetts, in Vermont, and even in Pennsylvania. So I thank the Senator. Let me yield the floor back to the chairman of the committee to see what could potentially be worked out, but I am so happy the Senator will not object to a flood insurance amendment if we can ever get to one.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on our side, let me tell my colleagues if they want to preserve jobs, vote against the Shaheen-Toomey amendment. The U.S. policy on sugar defends more than 142,000 jobs in 22 States and nearly $20 billion in annual economic activity. Their amendment is bad policy. The taxpayers do not pay a penny on the Sugar Program. Domestic production is supported by import restrictions which have been used wisely over time, so this amendment would effectively kill America's no-cost Sugar Program. Senator Cochran will take the last 30 seconds.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if it pleases the Chair, I would like to say a few remarks about sugar, but I am not sure about the chairwoman's plans. I thank the chairwoman of the committee and the ranking member. I know they are deciding what other amendments we are going to take up later this evening and how the votes will proceed. But let me again just thank my colleague from Michigan for her great lead and leadership on the farm bill. This sugar amendment was very important to the people of Louisiana whom I represent, and I want to just thank my colleagues for their vote to keep a program in place that has worked at no cost to the taxpayer-- no direct cash. It is monitored or organized or designed through an import restriction program that allows for the robust production of sugarcane and sugar beets in our Nation. I thank Senator Shaheen for the wonderful way she handled the debate. We have different views about this, but we are colleagues and we work together very well. There are two sides to this issue. I think the evidence on our side is stronger. She would probably disagree. But I thank our colleagues for supporting the sugar caucus. In Louisiana, sugarcane is being produced on over 427,000 acres in 22 parishes. Production is about 14 million tons, which is about 20 percent of the total sugar grown in the United States. Last year, in 2012, Louisiana sugar mills produced 1.6 million tons of raw sugar, the largest amount we have ever produced in our State. This production represents a huge part of our State's economy. The loss of market for this product would be devastating. Let me say that the State of Hawaii, the State of Florida, states such as Minnesota and North Dakota and South Dakota that have strong sugar beet crops, it is very important for them as well. Are the consumers hurt by this? Absolutely not. The U.S. sugar price is 14 percent below the world average, and 24 percent below the average for developed nations. So our policy is a good balance of encouraging domestic production and keeping prices stable and affordable for the consumer. Let me say for candy production--and I have a small amount of candy produced in Louisiana. I am very proud of these companies. American food manufacturers say they are shedding jobs, but in my view this has nothing to do with U.S. sugar policy. In fact, U.S. sweetened product manufacturers are prospering and expanding. Candy production is rising, not falling, up by 9 percent since 2004. In addition, sugar represents just a tiny portion of the price these food retailers charge for their products--1 percent of the cost of a cupcake, 2 percent of the cost of a candy bar, 3 percent of the cost of a carton of ice cream, and 5 percent of a bag of hard candy. So I think our arguments won the day. I appreciate our colleagues supporting the sugar caucus. We thank you for keeping this bill intact with the balance it needs to move forward so we can have a robust farm agriculture reauthorization bill for this United States. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I really appreciate the hard work of the Senators from Michigan and Mississippi, moving a farm bill through the Senate. It is one of the most important bills we will take up this year. Action on this bill is long overdue. I am very hopeful we can continue to make progress and produce a bill that is excellent for every region of our country. Of course, representing the South, we always like to have special attention given to our agricultural needs. The Senator from Michigan certainly has been attuned to the farmers in rural communities in Louisiana. We appreciate her leadership. I come to the floor today, though, just for a few moments to speak about the tragedy unfolding in Oklahoma, in Moore, OK, a city that was devastated--portions of the city in the suburban areas--by a horrible tornado, one of the largest to hit our Nation in quite some time. While I do not know all of the details, I understand that it was a very high level tornado that stayed on the ground for almost 40 minutes. This was miles wide and created a terrible path of destruction. There are, of course, adults and children who lost their lives. Recovery and rescue is still underway as I speak. I am certain that the delegations--both the Senate and House Members from Oklahoma--are doing everything they can, working with the Governor and local officials, to provide as much support as they will need. I come to the floor as the chair of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security and I come to the floor as a Senator who unfortunately has had a lot of experience in disasters to say how proud I am that there is about $11 billion available, without the requirement or necessity of an offset, for the people of Oklahoma. This was a battle that was fought over a year ago, led by Senator Harry Reid and me and others. This arrangement was made in the Budget Control Act so that there would be a significant pot of money set aside in the event that disasters such as this happened, whether it was a tornado or an earthquake or a fire or a flood. It has happened again. We don't know exactly when these disasters are going to happen. We don't know the exact nature of them. But we most certainly know from past experience and everything that our science tells us about the changes in the atmosphere that they are going to happen and that they are likely going to get worse. That is why I have been very focused on this issue. I am proud of this Senate, Republicans and Democrats, but I am very proud of the support of the Democratic leaders on this bill to say now is not the time--not this afternoon, not tomorrow morning, not Friday, not Monday--to be debating offsets for victims of the Oklahoma tornado. After a disaster, our citizens do not need or want a debate on funding. What they want is help, and they are going to get it from the committee I chair. Our people suffered so much in Katrina, Rita, and Gustav. I have watched the east coast have to recover from Irene and from Sandy. I have seen horrible tornadoes in Missouri. The last thing people want when they are digging their loved ones out of rubble and preparing, unfortunately, for funerals that are going to have to occur after what happened--the last thing they want to see Congress do is debate about how and when we are going to pay for this disaster. We are going to send them the money they need to recover. I want to say this to Senator Coburn, my good friend who is not on the floor--I do respect his consistency on this issue. Even when a tornado hit his State, he is still calling for offsets. He has been consistent, but in my view he has been consistently wrong. There will be no offsets. There is no need for offsets. I will not support offsets. The majority of Democrats, if not the entire Democratic caucus, will not support offsets for Americans in need in disasters. What we are going to do is support appropriate help and sufficient help for them. Let me say for the record that because of the Sandy supplemental-- which I also fought for with my colleagues from the Northeast--we were able to put some reforms in that bill. It was not just ``send the money and do what you will with it.'' We sent money to the Northeast. We also sent them new tools in a bigger, stronger toolbox to help them with a better recovery. We have a lot more to do in the Northeast. That is a subject for another day. I realize they are in lots of difficulty. But we did send some new tools that will help, even with Oklahoma. First, we sent them the ability to quickly establish mutually agreed upon estimates for project costs. That has been a real problem with recovery in the past, with local governments arguing one thing, the Feds offering something else. We now have a better, quicker process to agree on what the project costs to get it built more quickly. The project cost will be validated by an independent panel of experts protecting the taxpayer, which is important. Applicants are now allowed to consolidate projects in a commonsense way to build back smarter, reducing future recovery costs. Most important for this disaster--we fought hard for this in Sandy-- finally, there are some provisions in the recovery bill that will allow children to be the center of attention. Sadly, we have lost some children in this disaster. Sadly, many children were injured and probably thousands of children have been traumatized. But because of the new bill we passed under Sandy, there are some provisions to help. In addition, families can receive daycare now through their supplemental, so the parents who are going to have to figure out a way to get back to work and rebuild their businesses and their communities and their houses can have some additional Federal childcare, which will help. In addition, I think there are going to be more counselors on the ground helping children than in past disasters. I see colleagues on the floor, so let me finish quickly. We have implemented an automated family reunification database to ensure children are returned to parents. This is a relatively small place, well known. We do not believe there are any children whose whereabouts are unknown to their parents. All of the statistics, however, are not in of people missing, et cetera. But there are provisions right now at work with FEMA helping with family reunification. Coordinators are already on the ground specialized in looking out for the specific needs of children in disasters. I thank the coalition that worked with me for years to put that into place. Again, there will be no offset. There is no reason to need an offset. We have the $11 billion, thanks to the good work of many people in this Chamber and on the other side of this Capitol, to provide this funding for these disasters. I know FEMA is on the ground. They will do the best they can. In this case, with tornado insurance, which is carried by many people in this area--I am doing a little bit more research into whether it is mandatory or voluntary--with a combination of local help and State help and Federal help and private insurance and, of course, the great spirit of voluntarism, I am confident that after we finish this very sad recovery and shock this community is going through, that we will be able to help them build a stronger and more vibrant community of Moore, OK, in the future. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I was going to talk about the tornadoes, but I will take a moment to respond to my colleague from Utah. There are Members objecting to going to regular order on the budget, and he is one of them. The Senator from Utah himself is objecting to regular order, which would allow us to go to conference on the budget. He was one of the critics when he was running for office. He made numerous statements while he was on his way to becoming a Senator by saying that the Senate and the House needed to have a budget. Well, the House has passed a budget, the Senate has passed a budget. Yet the Senator from Utah is the one--along with the Senator from Kentucky, and I understand earlier today, the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain--objecting to going to conference to resolve the differences. I know the Senator from Utah has read the Constitution, just as I have. The Constitution and the laws that created the Senate of the United States give great strength to the minority--and he is in the minority. However, nowhere in the Constitution does it say one Senator from one State has the right to write the rules and laws for the whole country. I read it lots of times, and I have never seen that. Evidently that is what the Senator from Utah wants. He said if we would just do what he wants, we could proceed. Well, I have news for him and the Senators who are objecting. It is not about what they individually want. It is collectively what we want. We represent all the people of our country: Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, and liberals. For 4 years this same group yelled and screamed about not having a budget. Now that we have a budget, they are yelling and screaming that they don't want to work out the differences. I honestly don't know how to please colleagues like this. We had to literally listen to them ranting and raving for years about how we didn't have a budget. We worked extra hard. At the time we said--and I was one of them--that technically they're right, we did not have a budget. As the Presiding Officer knows, we had something that was stronger than a budget. We had spending limits that had the real teeth of law. What people might not realize is budgets are aspirations. Just as when someone does a budget at home, they can say: My budget this year is going to be set at $25,000. It is an aspiration. They might spend a little more or a little less. There is no mechanism for control; it is just an outline, and that is important. We thought what we had, as the Democratic leadership, is better than a budget. We had actual spending controls, but that wasn't enough for the Republicans. They knew we had spending controls, but they still went on ``Fox News'' and everywhere else explaining to people that we had no budget and inferred there were no controls. And that is patently false. We had spending controls. We have spending controls now. We have spending limits which are agreed to by Republicans and Democrats, except there are a handful of Republicans who don't agree with those limits. They decided because they represent half of four States that they want their way or the highway, and now the whole Congress cannot go to a conference on a budget. I don't understand this. I understand minority rights need to be protected. I understand it is important to make sure everyone's voice is heard. I understand everybody cannot get everything they want. I don't understand when my colleagues--the Senator from Utah, the Senator from Kentucky, and the Senator from Arizona--say: No, we can't go to a conference to work out the differences on the budget so the United States can move more quickly to a balanced budget. They have complained year after year that we didn't have a budget. It is the height of hypocrisy, and their position is completely unexplainable and unacceptable. I am glad I was on the floor. I came to talk about the tornado, but I am glad I had a chance to make a statement for the Record about why not many--but there are a few--Republican leaders have stopped the entire budget process until they get their way exactly the way they want it. That is not the way our government works. We don't have kings anymore. We don't have dictators anymore. We don't have people with special powers. We are all humans, and we are all on equal footing. We are all elected to represent our constituents. No one in this Chamber is entitled to write the budget exactly the way they want it. If I wanted to do something, I could say just as easily as he could: Well, I am going to object unless you promise me that X, Y, and Z are going to be in the budget. I could say that, as could the Senators who sit next to me, Senator Sanders and Senator Carper. Every Senator could say that. We all have things which are very important to us and our constituency, but if we act like that and we don't act in a mature and sensible way, we will never get anything done, and that is where we are now. We have a handful of Republican Senators--maybe less than five, I don't know--who are objecting every day so we cannot take our budget to conference and have it reconciled. They have yelled at everybody for 4 years about how we didn't have a budget. The only way we are going to get a budget is to go to conference, have regular order, and work out the differences in a public meeting with public votes. It cannot happen behind closed doors or in some back room somewhere. It has to take place in a public meeting, during a conference so we can talk about what programs or what levels of funding should be reduced, such as what revenues could potentially be raised. Then, according to our process, those directions are given to appropriations committees. At that point we can do our work on building an appropriation for defense, building an appropriation for education, building an appropriation for health, and for our veterans. If we don't have a budget, we cannot even go to regular order on appropriations. As an appropriator, it is getting frustrating around here to not be able to go to a regular appropriations meeting and sit down as we used to do before this new crew showed up and talked about meeting our budget caps and how we wanted to allocate the taxpayer money in a public, open meeting instead of cramming things in an omnibus bill and doing deals in the middle of the night. If they would let us get back to regular order and do the people's business, I promise that the people of Utah would be happy, the people of Arizona would be happy, and the people of Kentucky would be happy. They want us to get back to regular order so we can try to negotiate a budget that the majority--and not even the regular majority. We have to have 60 votes to do anything around here. Before a conference committee can come back, there has to be a broad understanding of what was going to be in that conference. I have one final argument. I could understand a little trepidation on the part of the minority if they were not in control of the House, but the Republicans have control of the House, and the Democrats have control of the Senate. I mean, I could understand their concern if one party had the majority in both the Senate and the House. They might be concerned that what comes out of conference could get rammed down and the minority could be caught off balance. The minority controls the House. This is as fair a fight as they are going to have with one party controlling one and one party controlling the other. Yes, the President is a Democrat, but he has indicated what I think is very open-minded support for entitlement reform when it is appropriate and additional revenues that are being raised. The President has not put any particular line in the sand that I am aware of. He has been quite reasonable, but he cannot sign a budget unless we can get it to his desk. We have three or four Senators, if they can't get it exactly the way they want it, who are going to hold up everything. I don't think that is what the American people want, and I am disappointed in our colleagues. I yield the floor.