Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Don't we now proceed to the McCain amendment under the consent agreement, for debate? It was to be Senator McCain or Senator Lee?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I note the prompt appearance of Senator Lee. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator will withhold, the next amendment under our agreement was Senator McCain. He will be here in 5 minutes, so the Senator may proceed.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Arizona for coming to the floor and debating this amendment because it means we can move our bill in an expeditious way. I wish we could be solving the issues around the fiscal cliff with such civility, watchful rigor, and a commitment to the taxpayer. Having said that, however, I rise to oppose the Senator's amendment. The Emergency Forest Restoration Program was established after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It does help owners of private forest land carry out emergency measures to restore land damaged by a natural disaster. This is not just trees falling. It has recently been used to provide assistance to tornado damaged land across the Southeast: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas. As the Senator from Maryland, the Presiding Officer, knows, when a hurricane hits, people, homes, and landscape are uprooted. The program provides a 75-percent cost share for the work. The landowner has to provide the other 25 percent. In order to participate in this program, there must be an onsite inspection to determine the type and extent of damage caused by the disaster, and it must show that the damage, if untreated, would endanger our natural resources or materially affect the future use of land around it. If the physical inspection determines this land qualifies for the program, funding can be provided to remove damaged timber, clean up the damaged trees, and take those activities to prevent future forest fires that can certainly spread beyond the private forest. In the long run, some of these issues, if not controlled, could cause much greater damage and cost much more money. Funding for this program was included in the administration request for the supplemental, but it is limited only to Sandy. We are not doing this as a new program that will occur in every disaster. Just as we did for Katrina and for Rita, the bill was done for that. This would be limited only to those geographic areas affected by Hurricane Sandy. Historically, when disaster supplementals are considered, funding to eliminate the full EFRP backlog was included. This practice has been historically supported by both sides of the aisle. We hope it is continued in this bill. I respectfully urge all Senators to oppose this amendment. Mr. President, we are moving very well on this bill, and we expect to have votes on these amendments when our colleagues return from the White House beginning shortly, around 4 o'clock. We note there is another Senator who wishes to speak, but I, both in terms of the chair of the full committee as well as the Senator from Maryland, along with my colleague presiding, do want to speak about this supplemental. As we are drawing to a close with very few amendments left, I hope my colleagues will pass this supplemental appropriations and view it urgently. In Maryland, we were hit in Hurricane Sandy. We were hit in two ways. No. 1, a hurricane on the Eastern Shore and up and down the Chesapeake Bay, over 2,500 miles of shoreline, the Maryland part of the bay, the big bay, the inlets, the coves, the peninsulas--all of which were vulnerable during Hurricane Sandy. Parts of our lower shore were absolutely devastated. While we were fighting the ravages of the hurricane and the wind and the rain, up in western Maryland it took the turn that it was a blizzard, a blizzard in western Maryland. Mr. President, you received the same calls I did, county commissioners saying the roads were blocked, 90 percent of the power was down. The National Guard had to be called out because only they had the muscle vehicles to clear the roads so the emergency power could get in. State Troopers were rescuing people on snowmobiles and down in the lower shore they were going in, in swift boats, to pull out the elderly and other vulnerable populations. It was just awful. As the storm moved up and down the coast, community after community-- small like ours, large like New York City--was pounded and pounded by this devastating hurricane. All of America watched. We all held our breath. We all feared the worst and we saw the worst. At the same time, we saw the indomitable spirit of the American people hanging on to their home, praying for their livelihood. While all that was going on, the President visited the Governors on both sides of the aisle to say you have the United States of America behind you. The United States of America being behind you, whether you are Governor O'Malley or Governor Christie or Governor Cuomo or the other Governors, means we need to pass this bill. We want to pass it because we know that lives were devastated and livelihoods were ruined. In Maryland, we faced these unique challenges: hurricane, blizzards, urban and rural communities affected. In our own lower shore, Somerset County was hit. That has one of the highest unemployment rates in the State, close to 10 percent; 18 percent of the residents live below a line of $35,000 a year. What I said then and what I say now: They were rich in community spirit, but they don't always have a lot of cash. Why? Because their jobs are in agriculture, seafood--industries that were hard hit by the decline in species, drought, and high fuel prices. Families live in the same house for one, two, and three generations. An appraiser might come by and wonder what the value is of that house. If a family inherited the house from their mom, dad, or grandpa--some families go back to the days of the Underground Railroad--that house means something to that family. How do we restore them? How do we get the mold out? How do we get them back and functioning? Well, that is what this bill is all about. You and I fought tooth and nail to get our State the assistance it needed--not only our State but the other States as well--because we are the United States of America. We hit some bureaucratic roadblocks along the way, but thanks to the President and Mr. Fugate, the Administrator for FEMA--and, wow, didn't he do a good job--and the creativity of Shaun Donovan at HUD, we all felt we were in it together. I thank them for their work. What does that mean? Just in Somerset County alone, 619 people have applied for individual assistance. They were eligible for about $1 million. When we are talking about all of this money, $1 million might not mean a lot in the Federal budget, but it sure meant a lot in the Somerset County family budget. I am proud of what I did in working with you to help do this, and I am really proud of what our colleagues have done with their work on this legislation. We have outstanding subcommittee chairs, and I will talk about this in the wrap-up. They did a great job under President Obama's leadership, and the executive branch functioned in a prime-time way. Now it is up to us to function in a prime-time way and to move this bill. The supplemental package provides well-tailored resources. Yes, there was $11.5 billion for the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund and $17 billion in community development block grants for the restoration of infrastructure and housing, lives and livelihoods, and so the Corps of Engineers can repair and rebuild projects along the shorelines. These are the kinds of things this money will be used for. It is not to be spent on bureaucracy but on the restoration and recovery. It will actually put people to work rebuilding their communities. Now, we might want to talk about how we don't want to spend money on foreign aid, but I sure want to spend money on American aid. I want to rebuild America, and I want to talk about things such as an infrastructure bank another time. Right now, we have an opportunity to come to the aid of fellow Americans, who in many instances are quite desperate, to restore those communities and do the kind of infrastructure we need in order to rebuild physical infrastructure and, I might add, emotional infrastructure. I strongly support this legislation that I bring before the Senate today. I ask that my colleagues join me in moving it forward. At the end of the day, if we pass this bill, it will be a better day for all of those who were so hard hit by Hurricane Sandy. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, if the Senator from Texas will yield for a moment, I don't want the gavel to come down during her presentation. We were scheduled to resume votes at 4 o'clock. I wish to ask unanimous consent for the Senator from Texas to finish her statement and then Senator Leahy be recognized to make a few remarks. We know the leadership is on their way back from the White House. So I ask unanimous consent that votes resume at 4:15 after the Senator from Texas completes her remarks and after the Senator from Vermont speaks for a few minutes to debate the Rand Paul amendment.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am right here.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be allowed to finish his statement.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Regular order. Amendment No. 3376

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, on our side, we yield all time back and are ready to proceed to a vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. What day?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, a point of clarification for our colleagues, if Members could understand: We are going to vote on the McCain amendment now and then we have four more amendments. Mr. President, I stand corrected. So Senators can plan their time--I know it is of the essence--we have, upon the disposition of the McCain amendment, two other amendments--Merkley in agriculture and Coats on the Republican alternative. Then we have the Reid substitute, which we believe will be a voice vote. Then we will go to final passage. So we have two amendments. We will have four votes, one of which we think is a voice. So everybody knows--don't go off. Don't go off. Also, when we have the votes, if we can stick to the 10 minutes, it will enable us to complete the disposition of the bill. I yield the floor and recommend we follow the regular order on the amendment of Senator McCain.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I will yield back the time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for 1 minute to be able to respond to what the Senator from Oregon just did.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I just want to say to the Senator from Oregon, and all the other Senators who face agricultural disasters, we on the Appropriations Committee would like to work with the Senator. This is compelling human need--your disaster, my fisheries disaster. We have to have a way of working together. We want to acknowledge the validity of the Senator's concern. The Senate has spoken on a budget point of order. But we do want to work with the Senator and work with our authorizers so we do not have our agricultural interests hanging out there. So I thank the Senator for his efforts. The Senate has spoken on this amendment. Let's see what we can do together. Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask for the regular order. Amendment No. 3391

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as we now move to final passage on this bill, I believe Senator Cochran and I, on a bipartisan basis, could wrap up our statements. Mr. President, we are now moving to final passage, and I know this bill will provide immediate relief to our constituents. I urge the adoption of the bill. I thank Senator Cochran, the ranking member on this bill, for his courtesy. I want to say to my colleagues that Senator Inouye would have been really proud of the way we acted today. We acted with civility, and we acted with crispness and promptness. We did the people's business. He would really be proud of us, and I am proud of all of you. I thank my subcommittees' chairs--Senators Landrieu, Murray, Leahy, Feinstein, and Harkin--for the great work they did and Senators Schumer, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Menendez for the way they helped with the heavy lifting. To the able staff of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Charlie Houy and the subcommittee clerks, again a heartfelt thanks. But the real thanks would be passage of the bill and making sure we are meeting the compelling human needs of our fellow citizens. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for the yeas and yeas.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I seek recognition to rebut the Coburn amendment and also to offer two amendments. But before I do, I just wish to thank my colleagues, particularly those who have amendments. I wish to thank them for their cooperation and being willing to offer them and speak tonight, on both sides of the aisle. I would also note the Senator from New York and the Senator from Connecticut also wish to speak. Senators whose States have been very hard hit should have the opportunity to speak, and I am going to take my rebuttal of the Coburn amendments and just abbreviate them. With the exception of being willing to accept the amendment where you cannot get emergency assistance if you are a tax cheater or if you passed away, with the exception of a funeral benefit, I object to the Coburn amendments. My objections have been so well articulated by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, and by the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Coburn amendment No. 3369. This amendment makes no sense. It would require the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development to make public any grant announcement three days before either department announces the grant. In other words, do something three days before you are going to do it. I understand the Senator's intent, which is to eliminate the ability of Members to have a brief advance notice of pending grant announcements. However, in trying to weaken Congress' legitimate oversight role, the amendment overreaches. More importantly, I don't agree with this effort to cede Congress' role in these notifications. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. President, not everything in the Senator's amendment No. 3371 is objectionable. Unfortunately, it is loaded down with at least two provisions that make it impossible to support related to FEMA efforts to aid disaster victims and help communities rebuild. First, returning funds appropriated in this bill that have not been obligated and spent within two years to the Treasury is unreasonable. FEMA will of course obligate the funds provided in this bill in less than two years. However, spending the funds to complete the rebuilding of schools, hospitals, police stations, surge barriers, floodgates, and levees will take longer. Communities will need time to do the proper planning, competently bid for projects, fulfill State action plans, do site selection and development, complete audits and then request for the federal government to reimburse the eligible costs in the right amount. To do this responsibly and within the bounds of proper oversight, it will take more than two years to reimburse the eligible expenditures. On the one hand, the Senator wants FEMA to spend the money faster while on the other hand he imposes more restrictive and time consuming Federal standards for competition. The second objectionable provision in this amendment is to cap FEMA's recovery assistance to States at 75 percent of the costs of damages. This ties the hands of the Nation to support the needs of the victims of the most severe disasters. The Stafford Act currently requires that FEMA provide assistance at 75 percent of the cost of the recovery. However, in cases where damages have proven to be extremely severe FEMA can increase its share to 90 percent. The adjustment to 90 percent is based on an objective formula that considers per capita damage, which must reach over $131 per person. The threshold is difficult for states to reach unless they experience a severe event. I oppose this amendment. Amendment No. 3382 This amendment would require merit-based and competitive awards of disaster recovery contracts. This amendment would prohibit the use of any disaster funds for contracts not competitively awarded pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation FAR. This would appear unnecessary, because the FAR already limits non-competitive contracts to one year, in general. The amendment would also require a review of disaster recovery contracts that were awarded prior to enactment of the Supplemental that weren't competitively bid. For any contracts not competitively bid, agencies would be required to achieve cost savings or to award a new competitive contract, and discontinue the original contract. The requirement for retroactive review of contracts that were awarded before the date of enactment for which other than competitive procedures were used for the purpose of determining if additional cost savings can be achieved or whether a new contract should be pursued would pose a significant burdensome and disruptive task. The amendment would require hiring up additional contracting staff to handle the ``looking back review'' and potential ``re-competition'' envisioned in order for the current staff to contract for the supplies and services needed to respond to and recover from Hurricane Sandy. Since there is a limited number of contracting officers available to Federal agencies, complying with this provision, should it be enacted, has the very real potential to limit DHS's ability to meet ongoing mission requirements. Furthermore, no date or parameters are established for conducting and completing these reviews, so agencies would not know how far back to review. One could assume the amendment means only those currently operating contracts, but it does not specify. For those agencies in the midst of recovery efforts for Hurricane Sandy, is the intent that they stop ongoing efforts (to include obligating those additional funds that are coming) to undertake such a review? How can the workforce still supporting the disaster be handling the ongoing efforts to support the disaster and at the same time be reviewing what they did in November? Complying with this mandate, should it be enacted, has the very real potential to adversely impact the Government's ability to meet their ongoing disaster recovery missions. This amendment requires agencies to terminate contracts if cost savings can be realized. The burden of the analysis alone would be daunting especially since no threshold is specified. This amendment would require agencies to review even purchase card orders. Terminating contracts for convenience is not inexpensive--there significant administrative costs, and it is labor-intensive. This amendment would be onerous and costly and will hinder the recovery and repair effort. Therefore, Mr. President, I recommend that this amendment be opposed. Amendment No. 3383 Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 3383. The proviso that my friend proposes to strike authorizes projects for the Corps to construct that would reduce the impacts from flooding and provide storm damage reduction. I agree with my friend that the provision that he proposed to strike could be read as overly broad and authorized projects for construction that were not intended nor could they be constructed with the amount of funding that was provided. Senators Feinstein and Boxer have addressed the shortcoming of that provision by striking it with an earlier amendment--No. 3421 and replacing it with new text. This new text no longer authorizes an undefined set of projects. Rather, it directs funding to be utilized to construct projects in areas that suffered direct inundation impacts from Hurricanes Sandy and Isaac. This provides a defined scope for the work that the Corps can construct with the funds provided. The provision requires that the projects to be undertaken must be cost effective, technically feasible and environmentally acceptable. I think my friend would agree that should be the goal of all of the Corps projects that we fund. Voting for this amendment would undo the defined requirements and scope for these projects that we previously voted for. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Amendment No. 3370 Mr. President, I oppose Division 2 of amendment No. 3370. Division 2 of this amendment tries to steer fishery disaster funding for communities only affected by Hurricane Sandy by citing Stafford Act requirements and limiting funding for area within \1/2\ mile from shore. But the Stafford Act overseas disasters on land. The Act has absolutely no bearing on fishery disasters, fishery disasters are declared by the Secretary of Commerce according to Federal Fishery and Commerce laws at the request of the State Governors. Fishery disaster needs are necessary, urgent, unanticipated and these coastal fisheries are not bound by some arbitrary \1/2\ mile boundary. Under this amendment all federally declared fishery disasters would miss out on much needed financial assistance, even those communities affect by Hurricane Sandy. Fishery disaster funding is not just about fixing damaged boats and waterfronts. It is about rebuilding smarter fisheries so that businesses and coastal communities stand a better shot of avoiding future disasters. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. President, in the interest of time, I think we all agree why the very intent to save money by adding delay and bureaucracy will cost money and will cost time, in terms of getting people back on their feet, both in their home and in their livelihood. Remember what we seek: helping people get their life back and helping them get their livelihood back. I think that has been very well articulated. I would now also like to take the opportunity to call up and dispose of two amendments. Amendment No. 3403 I call up, on behalf of Senator Leahy, amendment No. 3403.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of H.R. 1, the legislative vehicle for the Hurricane Sandy supplemental.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to give a sense of the order of amendments so Senators may plan their time. We are now back on the supplemental bill, and we have great cooperation in getting the pending amendments and debate done this evening so we could actually start voting tomorrow morning. So that Senators can have an understanding of how we will start our work this evening, I want to lay out a bit of the schedule. This is not a unanimous consent request. It is kind of an outline. Our intention is to have the following amendments called up after I yield the floor: Senator Cardin to be recognized to call up his amendment No. 3393; Senator Tester to be recognized for up to 2 minutes to call up his amendment No. 3350; Senator Landrieu to be recognized for up to 2 minutes to call up her amendment No. 3415; Senator Coburn to be recognized for up to 30 minutes to call up his six amendments: Nos. 3368; 3369; 3370, as modified; 3371; 3382; and 3383; following that, Senator Merkley to be recognized for up to 5 minutes to call up his amendment No. 3367; and then I have a few I will call up on behalf of other Senators. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, wait. Before the Senator from Montana speaks, why don't we voice vote the amendment now.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Would the Chair withhold? There seems to be--Mr. President, if we could have order, I think it would be helpful for us.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, following up Leader Reid's comments, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you have these amendments, Senator Schumer and I would like to know. We will stay here to offer and debate them, as you were accorded under the unanimous consent agreement. If you come up and tell Senator Schumer and me now, we can get an order and sequence and tell you when we will call you up. Instead of everybody standing around, we would actually get a regular order and you would know when your amendments are coming up and what order you are coming up so that you could plan your evening. Please see Senator Schumer and me, and we will work with you to accomplish this. Mr. President, I yield the floor.