Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this amendment would allow for better coordination of our flood mitigation programs to meet the unmet needs of victims of disaster. As homeowners along the Jersey Shore seek to recover from Superstorm Sandy, they are not just faced with the task of rebuilding, they also have to comply with new, incredibly costly elevation requirements. Seniors who have lived in their modest homes their entire lives now face tens of thousands of dollars in unanticipated costs, all in addition to the costs of rebuilding. And while there are Federal programs available to help coordination among these programs, it is incredibly poor and leads to a lot of victims never being helped. For example, there are hazard mitigation grants available, but homeowners will lose eligibility if they begin work before their application was approved, even if they complied with every other rule and regulation. My amendment would allow coordination and fine tuning of these mitigation programs so they operate more effectively and meet the unmet needs of disaster victims. The amendment would not cost any money, nor would it add another penny to the deficit. It just encourages the use of current programs in a more wise and coordinated fashion. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this side-by-side with Senator Sessions is very straightforward. It restates current law. Let me repeat that. It restates current law, which already explicitly excludes undocumented immigrants who are in this country from obtaining benefits such as tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies when obtaining health insurance coverage. We debated this policy at length during health care reform, and this exemption was included in the final bill to address concerns of some of our Republican colleagues that undocumented immigrants would somehow be able to receive the benefits we included in the law. That is why we specifically and explicitly excluded them from being able to gain this type of coverage. Finally, addressing the issues of immigrant families is currently being done in a bipartisan fashion. The last thing we need to do in this budget process is to try to muck that up. This is not a great way to do your outreach to the Hispanic and immigrant community. I urge our colleagues just to stay with present law. Let's restate it once again, support our amendment, and reject the Sessions amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I do want our colleagues to understand that some of these amendments the chairwoman just asked to be put in order are incredibly fundamental important foreign policy issues that you do not do at 3 in the morning and change the dynamics of the Middle East, and change the dynamics of our national security and interests in international organizations. That is what some of these amendments will do. You do not do it in a budget process, you do it through regular order in a committee that ultimately can hear both sides as we have succeeded so far this session in a very bipartisan way. So I will not object because of the chairwoman's effort to get us to a conclusion. But I will be urging all of our colleagues to oppose all of those amendments because this is foreign policy on the fly. It is dangerous. We send very important messages when we cast votes in certain ways that can affect the balance of stability in the Middle East, that can affect our relationships across the world, that can affect our effectiveness in institutions that we need at the end of the day to promote our national security, our national interests.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized to engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Washington, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Murray. I want to commend the chairman's tireless efforts on this budget resolution. She has done the yeomen's work in crafting a document that reflects the values of our caucus in a balanced and pragmatic way. This stands in sharp contrast to the polarizing and ideologically driven budget our friends in the House passed earlier this week. As you know I have introduced legislation in the last three Congresses to create what I call the ``children's budget.'' This bill would require that the executive branch agencies include in their annual budget request to Congress a detailed analysis on children's programs. This analysis would include a breakdown of the appropriations, spending levels, and obligational authority and outlays for each program specifically targeted towards children or that serve children as a major component of their mission. Importantly, this would include an analysis not only of the fiscal year for which the budget request is being made, but also the previous and current fiscal years, to provide the Budget Committees and the Appropriations Committees with a comprehensive look at how funding is affecting the youngest Americans. I have filed an amendment to this concurrent resolution that seeks to address this very issue by encouraging the Appropriations Committees to request the analysis of children's programs contingent on the agencies' funding. However, I understand through conversations with the Senate Parliamentarian and others that indicate such an amendment might not comport with the strict requirements and procedures of a budget resolution. Is this the chairman's understanding as well?

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

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about the continuing unrest in Tibet and the tragic trend of Tibetan self- immolations. Since February 2009, more than 100 Tibetans have set themselves on fire. Many of the self-immolators have called out for the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet and for China to acknowledge the basic human dignity of the Tibetan people. Like so many others, I wish that Tibetans would not choose self- immolations, a horrific act, as a method of protest. I hope Tibetans will find other ways to express their grievances and despair and halt these self-destructive acts. At the same time, we must understand that these sorts of acts are indicative of the deep sense of frustration felt by the Tibetan people. This is not a conspiracy of ``foreign forces'' but indicative of the deep sense of hopelessness of a people denied their basic dignity. Under the Chinese Constitution, ``All ethnic groups in the People's Republic of China are equal. The state protects the lawful rights and interests of the minority nationalities and upholds and develops the relationship of equality, unity and mutual assistance among all of China's nationalities. Discrimination against and oppression of any nationality are prohibited. . . .'' Yet Tibet today is one of the most repressed and closed societies in the world, where merely talking on the phone can land you in jail. Support for the Dalai Lama can be prosecuted as an offense against the State. Tibetans are treated as second class citizens; their travel within and outside of Tibetan areas is highly restricted. Foreign diplomats and journalists are routinely denied access. The American people and Congress have demonstrated an abiding interest in the culture, religion, and people of Tibet, as well as a deep respect for His Holiness the Dalai Lama. We see Tibet as an issue of fundamental justice and fairness, where the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people, as embodied in the PRC's own constitution, are not being respected; where their culture is being eroded; and where their land is being exploited. So I believe that responsibility falls to us to help the Tibetan people in their efforts to preserve their culture and identity and have a say in their own affairs and to be able to exercise genuine autonomy within the PRC. Let me offer some thoughts on how Congress can help. First, we should continue to fund the important programs that help Tibetan communities, both in exile and on the Tibetan plateau. While these provide tangible humanitarian results, they also send a critical signal to the aggrieved Tibetan population that the United States hears their plea. One measure with which I am familiar is the Tibetan language broadcasts of Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America. I cannot overstate the importance of these efforts to provide perhaps the only independent source of news to Tibetans who struggle under the heavy censorship regime. Second, we should embrace the statement last fall by U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay on Tibet. She stated that ``social stability in Tibet will never be achieved through heavy security measures and suppression of human rights.'' She called on Chinese authorities to adopt the recommendations of various U.N. bodies and to allow access to Tibet by independent international observers and media members, noting 12 outstanding requests for official visits to China by U.N. Special Rapporteurs on various human rights issues. Third, the State Department should continue to insist on access to Tibet by its personnel. We need independent and credible reporting on the true situation on the ground, and the Department should work with China to take steps to see that the principle of reciprocity is respected. Fourth, I encourage the State Department and other government agencies to join in dialogue with China and with others in the region to address the deeper strategic aspects of the Tibet issue. Instability in Tibet is a factor in the broader question of social stability in the entire PRC. Peaceful resolution of the Tibet issue could go a long way in demonstrating to the world that China is indeed a responsible and constructive member of the community of nations. In turn, Beijing's growing influence in the Himalayan belt, especially Nepal, should be assessed in a broader dialogue with other nations in the region. Likewise, the United States should look for constructive ways to engage China on the issue of water security, given that Tibet's rivers provide the livelihood for hundreds of millions of people downstream in South and Southeast Asia. Chinese diversion of these rivers through constructing dams could become a source of conflict in the region. Mr. President, I close by paraphrasing an oft-uttered phrase by the Dalai Lama. He says that those who raise their voices of concern for Tibet do so not because they are pro-Tibet or anti-Chinese. They do so because they are pro-justice. I second this remark and look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, and with China, to promote a durable resolution to the Tibet problem.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are coming to the end of the time on this debate--or consideration, I should say. There has really been no debate. I think that speaks to Senator Kerry's tremendous standing in the Senate on his nomination as Secretary of State. This is a Member of the Senate who has an extraordinary American history. After volunteering for the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam war, Senator Kerry was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. Upon returning home, he continued his efforts to fight for and protect the veterans who served beside him in combat, joining with others to found the Vietnam Veterans for America organization, working tirelessly for veterans' benefits. With over three decades of foreign policy and national security experience under his belt, Senator Kerry is uniquely qualified to serve as the next Secretary of State. A decorated Vietnam combat veteran, dedicated public servant, with deep experience in international affairs and close relationships with Presidents and Prime Ministers throughout the world, he will have an extraordinary beginning to his job as Secretary of State. He has demonstrated time and time again his ability to build coalitions and craft compromises. He has amassed a broad record of foreign policy accomplishments and has distinguished himself as one of the Nation's most respected voices on national security. I look forward to a very strong bipartisan vote that sends a very clear message to the world: This is America's representative. This is our Secretary of State. I believe he has earned that vote and that respect through a lifetime of work and the tremendous collegiality he has had among Members on both sides of the aisle, including those who may not agree with him on any given issue but have always respected the manner in which he has approached that issue. Mr. President, understanding there are no other speakers wishing to come before the Senate on this matter, I yield back all time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to speak to the nomination of Senator Kerry to be the next Secretary of State. It has been more than 100 years since a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was directly nominated to be the Secretary of State. The last was Senator John Sherman of Ohio, who was selected to serve as Secretary of State to President McKinley. It is important to note that this historical fact exists because Senator Kerry's path isn't one commonly taken but one that is earned by a select few, and he has earned this opportunity. From the first time John testified before Chairman Fulbright as a young returning Vietnam war hero in 1971 to the day the President announced his nomination as Secretary of State, he has invested himself in all of his endeavors, always looking for the truth, for answers, uncovering the facts, hearing all the evidence, and then publicly speaking truth to power based solely on what was best for this Nation. I know he will carry those leadership traits with him into his new position, and I can think of no one better prepared to take on the challenges of this position. As a Senator, as a member of this committee, and as a chairman, John has already built strong relationships with leaders across the world, which will allow him to step seamlessly into the role of Secretary of State. Senator Kerry will need no introduction to the world's political and military leaders and will begin day one fully conversant not only with the intricacies of U.S. foreign policy but with the understanding of the nuanced approach necessary to effectively interact on a multinational stage. When Vice President Biden was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he said on more than one occasion that ``good international relationships are always predicated on strong interpersonal relationships.'' John Kerry understands there is no substitute for strong interpersonal relationships, whether in Senate politics or international diplomacy. Secretary of State is not a desk job. It requires constant personal interactions in the furtherance of American foreign policy. During his 30 years in public life and more than 25 years in the Senate, Senator Kerry has championed many issues. Earlier today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee favorably reported his nomination to the Senate unanimously and presented Senator Kerry with an honorary resolution highlighting a few of his many accomplishments. Amongst his accomplishments are the partnership he formed with Senator John McCain that led to an effort to investigate the fate of American soldiers unaccounted for in Vietnam and normalize relations with a former enemy--which is, in essence, Vietnam; his leadership of difficult, sensitive, and comprehensive investigations in the Senate on everything from the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and illegal money laundering, to the Noriega regime in Panama which is well known; advocating for democratic elections in the Philippines and serving with Senator Lugar as part of a Senate delegation that uncovered the fraud that led to the ouster of President Ferdinand Marcos; working with the Cambodian Government and the United Nations to facilitate the creation of the genocide tribunal in Cambodia to prosecute key members of the Khmer Rouge; advocating for programs that help secure nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons stockpiles and materials so they don't fall into the hands of hostile states or terrorists; and leading the Senate to provide its advice and consent to ratification of the New START treaty with Russia. During the Arab spring, Senator Kerry supported a no-fly zone over Libya, which helped to save thousands of civilians from being massacred, and he was a voice of courage and conscience in calling for President Hosni Mubarak to step aside and begin an orderly and peaceful transition to a democratic political system in Egypt. John has been a tireless advocate for the cause of peace in the Sudan and South Sudan and played an instrumental role in the successful referendum in 2011. John is well known for his bipartisan work with former majority leader Bill Frist on comprehensive HIV/AIDS legislation that laid the foundation for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a program that provides lifesaving treatment for people with HIV/AIDS and supports broad prevention efforts that save lives every day. Many of you know that John is a tireless and most convincing advocate for addressing global climate change and supporting the transition to a clean energy future. As chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, he convened eight major hearings and roundtables on climate change and energy security, underscoring their connection to global stability, economic competitiveness, and America's national security. In his new role, his portfolio will be greatly expanded as he represents the interests of the Nation, from securing our Embassies and protecting our overseas personnel to promoting commerce, enhancing cross-cultural ties, and keeping America secure through cooperation where possible and isolation where necessary, as in the cases of Iran and North Korea. Whatever the challenges we will face as a nation, in my view, the State Department could not be in better hands. When it comes to America's role in world affairs, I know we all agree that it is critical that the United States remain fully engaged, that we project not only the power of our military strength when necessary but the wisdom of our democratic ideas. I have no doubt that Senator Kerry will rise to meet these challenges as he has so consistently in his many years of service to his State and this country. I see the distinguished ranking member on the committee, Senator Corker, whom I look forward to working with as we move forward in the days ahead. I think all Members will say that even when they did not agree with Chairman Kerry on a given issue, they always felt he had an open ear, an open door, an opportunity for full debate, an effort to seek the common ground, particularly in U.S. foreign policy. I believe those traits are going to serve him extraordinarily well in his role as Secretary of State as he deals with the Senate and the House of Representatives as part of promoting U.S. foreign policy in a way that brings us as cohesively together as we can to promote the national interests and securities of the United States. I look forward at the end of this time period to a strong confirmation vote to send a message to the world that this is our Secretary of State, and he speaks for America on behalf of the Obama administration and the people of the United States. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I agree completely with Senator Gillibrand's sense of urgency regarding this vitally needed plan. I also know that my good friend from New York and I agree on the need to recognize and, to the greatest extent possible, to enhance the value of our coastal natural resources to the recovery of our storm-ravaged communities. It is our understanding--and we request the Chair's clarification-- that the language we have before us directs the Army Corps of Engineers to take the integrated, collaborative approach discussed by the Senator from New York. It is our hope and expectation that the Corps will go well beyond the usual level of coordination in order to take maximum advantage of the expertise and commitment its Federal and non-Federal partners bring to this legislation's explicit goals of flood risk reduction and ecological sustainability.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee for all of her incredible work and help here, as well as that of the staff, in bringing us to this moment. We would not be here without her tremendous work, especially in light of Chairman Inouye's passing. I appreciate the ranking member, someone who understands the challenges, having come from a Gulf State that saw the consequences of disasters. There are a couple of important dates here. The first one is 91 days, 91 days since Superstorm Sandy hit the Northeast; 91 days we have been languishing, waiting for our Government to respond to the critical issues, life-and-death situations, of fellow Americans. It is 91 days in which people who largely lost their home, or at least the ability to be back in their home, have been waiting for their government to say: Here is how we are going to help you. It is 91 days in which we now have the biting cold of the winter and the defenselessness of a coastline that cannot be subject to a northeaster that will ultimately have real-life consequences to people's lives, to people's properties, to repetitive loss. It is 91 days compared to what happened during Hurricane Katrina, where $60 billion was moved in 11; 91 days in which people have not been able to get their lives back on track, looking to their government--people who are good citizens, pay their taxes, obey the rules, follow the law, and ultimately say: We have been left behind. It is enough. Another 118 days. That is all we have left to Memorial Day and the beginning of a critically important season for New Jersey's economy, a $37 billion tourism industry that cannot get back on its feet unless the Federal Government says here is how we are going to help businesses reopen, here is how we are going to help people get back into their homes, here is how we are going to help you rebuild the infrastructure that is not only important to the economy of the State but to the national economy, for which New Jersey and of course New York are such big drivers--well over 10 to 11 percent. We only have 118 days and we have been languishing. I personally am tired of listening to the voices for patience and delay, suggesting that somehow we as citizens of the United States are second-class citizens waiting for this government to respond to the needs of fellow Americans. That is not what I envision when I think about the United States of America. Another number: 36 times; 36 times in which we in fact have looked at an emergency in this Nation squarely in the face and said it is an emergency. An emergency is an emergency is an emergency. For over two decades the Congress has looked at this set of disasters and said it is an emergency. But when it comes to the Northeast, somehow it is not an emergency, 91 days later. Offsets? We didn't have offsets for those over two decades. And when we talk about these offsets we use the words discretionary spending. I think America should know what it means. It means education, it means health care, it means the National Institutes of Health, it means law enforcement, it means a whole host of things we care about in our lives every day, across-the-board cuts, indiscriminate, without anything about what the consequences are--only when it comes to the Northeast. I want my colleagues to understand that personally this Senator will judge the future by how we are ultimately responded to. We already feel chagrined but it is what it is. We need to act today. Adoption of this amendment would not only create an across-the-board cut that has consequences to critical things Americans broadly depend on and does it indiscriminately, but also sets us farther back because we would have to go back to the House again, delays and more delays. I cannot look in the face of any American, whether in my State or any State in the country, and say, no, your government has abandoned you, you will have to wait. I cannot look at business owners who are making a life decision about whether what little they have they can reinvest and whether they will get any help from the government to open, hire people, and contribute to our economy. I cannot look in the face of a fellow New Jerseyan and say I still can't tell you what the Government will do to get you back in your home. I suggest to any of my colleagues that you would not want to look in the face of your citizens and have to be in the same position. The time has come to pass this bill without amendment in an up-or- down vote in what I hope will be the same bipartisan vote that we had when we originally passed the Senate bill. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to encourage the Senate to seek quick action on the Sandy relief package that has been long overdue. I know the majority leader is committed to bringing it to the floor as soon as we can get some type of agreement with the other side of the aisle, and I hope that agreement can come quickly because a recovery that is delayed--as this has already been significantly delayed--is a recovery that very likely can fail. We cannot afford for one of the biggest engines of the national economy, which is the Northeast, to fail in its recovery. This is not only for the sake of the Northeast but for the entire country. I appreciate the majority leader's steadfast commitment to provide that relief as quickly as possible here in the Senate, but time is a- wasting. It is already Wednesday, and I am concerned we will lose another week before we, in fact, seek passage and then go to the President. From there, it would move on so the resources could begin to flow to communities across the Northeast that have languished since Sandy took its toll. There is no excuse for delay. We already had the delay in the House. They could have passed the package the Senate passed in a transparent process that had the Appropriations Committee--on both sides--scrubbing the bill. It was brought before the Senate in a fashion in which we like to see the Senate work. I believe there were 25-some-odd amendments that were considered, a full vetting of the legislation, and there was a strong bipartisan vote at the end of that process. It was then sent to the House, and unfortunately it languished and died at the end of the last Congress. Now the House has acted in a different fashion. So I am happy at this point to accept the House's version--even though I do believe the Senate version is superior in a variety of ways--so it can be sent to the President. Getting relief to the citizens in the Northeast is critically important. I look at the package the House has, and I say to myself that $50.7 billion in resources, in addition to the flood insurance package that has already passed, will allow our residents and small businesses that have been waiting so long to recover and begin to rebuild. Finally, it will show them that they have a strong partner in the Federal Government and that someone is there for them, as we have been whenever and wherever disaster has struck our fellow Americans throughout this Nation. Obviously, I would have preferred the Senate bill, which was stronger, but we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We need to get assistance to the victims of Sandy as quickly as possible. This is a vehicle that gets us to that goal. While the House bill significantly reduces assistance in a couple of areas--including fishery disasters and community development funding, which I think in that respect may stump the recovery of an important industry along our coast and could potentially siphon off billions in CDBG funding that is badly needed right now in New York and New Jersey by amplifying what disasters are eligible for it--I am pleased to say we protected the overall amendment of the CDBG funding from the Senate bill, which is about $16 billion. While it is not everything we needed since it will now be spread even thinner across even more disasters, we can certainly help as many communities rebuild and recover as we can because time is of the essence. There is a fierce urgency right now. There are many business owners whom I have spoken to who said to me: Senator, I am at a critical juncture. I don't know whether I can reopen. If the government is not going to give me assistance, then I likely won't open because adding more debt, even in terms of a long-term, low-interest loan, is still debt. They say: I took out debt to start this business or: I took out debt to get through the great recession, but I don't really have the option to take out more debt without some direct assistance, such as a grant. A grant would give the help I need to jump-start my business so I can get those individuals I had employed reemployed once again and create an opportunity for our community. That decision right now for those businesses, which are life-and- death decisions, is pending and hanging by the will of the Senate to act. I am also pleased that the package the House passed recognizes what I have been saying all along--that funding the Army Corps of Engineers' efforts is critical to rebuilding coastal communities, particularly New Jersey's weakened coastal defenses. We are at the lowest of our immune system as a coastal State, and we already see the biting cold. It is cold throughout the Capitol today, which shows how cold it is outside. Think about those residents who are fellow Americans and don't have a place to call home because they don't have the wherewithal to get their home back in a way in which they can once again be able to live there, raise their families there, and meet their challenges as a family in a warm nurturing environment. That does not exist for many of our fellow Americans because they don't have the wherewithal to decide whether they are going to get the type of assistance to help them rebuild their homes. All of that is pending. Part of that is the Army Corps of Engineers' ability to reengineer our beaches in a way that ultimately provides not only for the potential of tourism, which is a $37 billion industry in our State, but even more importantly for the protection of lives, property, and protection against repetitive losses. That is what is going to happen when we get this money to the Army Corps of Engineers so they can rebuild our coastal defenses. This package would give Jersey Shore residents and businesses the comfort of knowing they would be better protected in the future than they have been in the past. It also includes $13 billion in critical funding I sought to help to restore our transportation systems. For example, it would allow New Jersey Transit to repair extensive damage from the storm and allow the agency to build facilities on higher ground to prevent future flood damage, which is a commonsense option. When we think about fiscal responsibility, why would we rebuild only to the very same status that was allowed to be flooded in the first place and caused all of the damage the government would pay for? The passage of this potential package from the House would allow the port authority to finish repairing the PATH station and harden electrical equipment to prevent future damages. If we could get an agreement, the package that would come to the floor would include necessary policy reforms that I have supported that will streamline recovery efforts and improve FEMA's public assistance programs, which is critical to a successful recovery. These reforms would allow us to rebuild what is in place even stronger and better before there is another storm. Again, this is important in terms of the end results. It is important in terms of the fiscal responsibility to ensure we rebuild in such a way that we don't end up with repetitive damage, which would be more costly to the government. It would allow a third-party dispute resolution process for major projects. Some of the history we have, particularly with Katrina from Senator Landrieu's experience, is the reality of not having a dispute resolution process, which ultimately forestalled recoveries and critical projects to that State and in those communities. Also, coverage for childcare costs related to disaster recovery through FEMA individual assistance is a critical element. Without going through all of the provisions of the House bill, let me just say we need to pass this relief package. People are suffering. They are desperately waiting for certainty so they can start rebuilding their lives, their businesses and communities. They are trying to get back on their feet. They need this aid even if it is late and even if it is ultimately longer than other disasters have had to wait. As I pointed out in the past, I think it was 10 days or so when $50 billion flowed to Katrina victims. We are nearly 3 months since the worst disaster on the east coast in terms of a natural disaster that has taken place. The people of the Northeast, the people of my State of New Jersey and our neighbors in New York desperately need this funding, and it is time to help these fellow Americans. It is time to do it now. It is time to do it this week. It is going to take time for this recovery to take place. The longer we delay, the greater the chance of failure we, in fact, create. I think we want success, not failure. I think we want to understand, as an institution, as I have said many times, that this is the United States of America. That means we respond to the challenges and the disasters that take place in other parts of the country. We do it, hopefully, more expeditiously than this, and at the same time we stand by our fellow Americans so they can reclaim their lives, reclaim their commitments to their communities, reclaim the opportunity to reopen their businesses, to contribute to those communities, to our State, to this Nation, to our society. So I strongly urge our colleagues who have some reticence to agree to moving forward on a Sandy bill to come to common ground with us, to come to agreement to move this relief package. No American should have to languish months after a disaster to get help. That should not be the standard. The hallmark of our response should be an intelligent but expeditious response to the consequences of a disaster that any American faces. That is our tradition. It is a tradition we should maintain. It is a tradition that, unfortunately, in this particular instance has not been a reality. It is a tradition that I hope we can ultimately embrace once again this week in finally pushing through a Sandy package that can move to the President for signature and bring relief to our communities. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. After the Senator from New York.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object--I am not going to object, but I would like to amend the request so that I would be recognized after him.

Mr. MENENDEZ. First, I wish to thank the distinguished chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee for the work she and her staff have put together. It is remarkable considering the timeframe they were in. Of course, the late Senator Inouye, with his staff as well that the chairwoman has inherited, did an exceptional amount of work along with Senator Landrieu. Certainly the people of the Northeast thank you very much. I think Senator Schumer has done a good job overall of talking about our concerns about these amendments, but I want to give a little greater depth and certainly a New Jersey perspective to them. I do not question the motives of our distinguished colleague from Oklahoma. He has been consistent in that. I don't question his consistency. Even though I haven't checked the record, I will take his word that even on tax cuts and war spending he has been consistent. But I do question the consequences of some of his amendments--consequences to the people of the Northeast, consequences to the people of New Jersey, consequences in the future as it relates to other disasters. At one point, he talked about courage in a fiscal sense. Let me tell you, courage is what people in New Jersey are looking at each and every day when they find their businesses closed and are trying to sum up the courage to open again. Courage is those who have lost their homes and are trying to reopen their homes, which they could not even do for the holidays. They were certainly not home for Christmas. Courage is looking at that every day and trying to figure how you move forward. Courage is many of the small municipalities, many that lost their police and fire departments and are working with others to create public safety as they rebuild the very essence of their departments. That is courage, real courage in the face of incredible challenge. Two of the amendments dealing with the Army Corps go straight to that courage. I came to the floor over the last 2 weeks several times and showed a host of visuals to our colleagues to understand that we are at the lowest level of protection. It is akin to an individual whose immune system is virtually gone. I said then, all we need is a nor'easter to come through and we will see the consequences of having no defenses. Unfortunately, yesterday we suffered a nor'easter. It wasn't the worst of what we could have received, but for several parts of New Jersey it was certainly bad news because those communities that are defenseless as a result of not having Army Corps-engineered beaches caught the worst of it again. In Sea Bright and Mantoloking and a host of other communities along the Jersey shore, they caught the worst of it again and all the fears and all the nightmares of what they went through under Sandy were relived once again. When you talk about changing the rules on the Army Corps' participation in terms of what he wants as a 90-10 split, No. 1, that changes the rules. Just to make sure I was right about this, I asked Senator Landrieu of Louisiana: Wait a minute. In Katrina, wasn't there a 90-10 split? She said, Yes; and in some cases up to 100. The people of the Northeast, the people of New Jersey and New York, deserve no less in their disaster. There are a whole host of communities even with a 90-10 split that are going to find it incredibly difficult--when 20 or 25 percent of their ratable base is gone--to fund the 10 percent that we are asking them. We believe they should have skin in the game. But even at that 10 percent, they are going to have enormous difficulties funding that 10 percent to get the lifesaving, property-saving, fiscally responsible solution in having Army Corps-engineered beaches. So 90-10 is still a challenge to a whole host of communities. Go to the proposition that our colleague from Oklahoma has, and we basically nullify their ability to protect their citizens. I always thought the No. 1 priority of any government--Federal, State or local--was to protect their citizens. Certainly, the Senate should be protecting its citizens, whether it is abroad or at home. In this respect, we cannot protect our citizens along the New Jersey coastline if, in fact, we cannot have these engineered beaches and if, in fact, we cannot afford to have those engineered beaches. So talk about being fiscally responsible. Instead, we will pay billions in repetitive-loss damages, and we will lose lives as we lost in New Jersey. I want to save lives and I want to save property and I want to save the Federal Government from paying repetitive losses. That is why that amendment is certainly not one we can accept by any stretch of the imagination. It is unfair to the people of the Northeast because it changes the rules of the game, and it is unfair in terms of our obligation to the public safety. I, for one, do not want to be casting a vote that ultimately leaves my fellow New Jerseyans or fellow Americans at risk when I could have saved their lives. I am certainly not going to do that, and I hope this Chamber is not going to do that. Secondly, with reference to the other Army Corps of Engineers amendment, which would suggest that those projects that are already well underway to being determined and that, in fact, are cost-effective and can save lives and save property and save ratables and save repetitive losses cannot be approved, would be, in essence, to guarantee that at the lowest rate of our defenses we will just suffer an entire winter of incredible misery, no, we cannot have that amendment pass. Thirdly, with reference to the question of acquisition, the Governor of New Jersey made that decision. I can't speak for him, but my understanding is he made that decision from FEMA-approved contracts. If FEMA needs a better process to go ahead and negotiate and/or bid in advance of a generic contract, so be it. But a delayed recovery is a failed recovery. I want my colleagues to remember that 10 days after Hurricane Katrina, this Chamber passed two separate bills amounting to $60 billion. It has been nearly 2 months since we had Superstorm Sandy and nothing has passed. Who among us would be content with the counsels of patience and delay if, in fact, we were shivering in the cold; if, in fact, our families had no home; if, in fact, they had been displaced from their schools; if, in fact, their businesses that they worked a lifetime and took out debt and now are closed may never open, who among us would be happy with the counsels of patience and delay? So we cannot have a set of circumstances that creates a series of delays. I am all for the good governing amendments of saying to those who are in debt to the Nation that they, in fact, cannot receive any benefits or those who are deceased. Of course, they should not receive any benefits. But the rest of this is about creating delay after delay that is in the midst of a biting winter. We just had the first nor'easter yesterday. We cannot ultimately accept those types of changes that put us in a process in which, in fact, we will not be able to successfully move the elements of being able to recover. This constant reference that a great part of the money--the overwhelming part of the money will not be spent, I think I heard 2015, is simply not the case. Whether it be Army Corps of Engineers projects that have already been approved and authorized but not funded that are critical to our defenses, those are ready to go. They just need money. The flexibility we have sought in this bill, working with an incredible insight from what happened in Hurricane Katrina and what worked and did not work, that flexibility will allow money to flow to business people are at the crucial point of trying to decide: Can I open? Because I need to know what the government is going to do for me, as part of my equation as to whether I open this business. Because low-interest loans from the SBA, even a long-term proposition, is still more debt. Many of these businesspeople that I have met up and down New Jersey have told me: Senator, I took out money to start this business. I took a debt to start this business. I took out further debt through the great recession. More debt doesn't necessarily mean I will succeed, but a grant, as we authorize through CDBG block grants, can very well make the difference between me reopening and not and hiring back people and being able to have and be part of that ratable base and paying toward the greater good of the State and the Nation. That is what is at stake as well. That money is going to flow if we do this the right way as this bill envisions. So this suggestion that it is going to take years down the road is simply not true. Secondly, I think we lose sight that while, yes, this is about New Jersey and New York and Connecticut, it is about a region--a region that employs 10 percent of the Nation's workforce and accounts for 11 percent of the entire Nation's GDP. That is 12.7 million workers and $1.4 trillion in productivity. If we want to see that region continue to contribute to the gross domestic product growth of this country, to continue to contribute to the employment, to continue to contribute to the Federal coffers, we need to help it to be able to help themselves, not to turn our back on them. That is what is at stake. Finally, I would just say there is a whole host of other disasters, and the committee has been very focused on saying nothing goes into this bill that isn't disaster related, one disaster or another. Because there has been no other disaster funding that there has been a vehicle for, whether it be wildfires or crop disasters--I personally welcome that, because as I have said many times, this is the United States of America. There is a reason we call it the United States of America. It is so we are all in this together. So I welcome the fact that we can help other fellow Americans through this vehicle, whether it be about wildfires or crop disasters or estuaries and fisheries that were hurt in other parts of the country at different times. So be it. Because that is what being the United States of America is all about. But we need to pass this bill tomorrow. We need to reject these amendments--particularly the ones that I and Senator Schumer have talked about--because they will fail us in our recovery. It will undermine our ability to protect our people. Finally, I would just simply say we need to pass it so the House can consider this bill as its vehicle when they come back on Sunday. This bill has been out there for weeks. The President's proposal has been out there for over 1 month. Everybody knows what has been asked. Everybody knows what is involved. Everybody has seen that the Senate already voted for cloture; therefore, there is going to be a bill here at the end of the day. There is no reason why the House cannot seek to pass this and respond to our fellow citizens in the Northeast. That is what being the United States of America is all about. I yield the floor.