[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7693-S7703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 3081, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 107, 
     H.R. 3081, an act making appropriations for the Department of 
     State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is 
recognized.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Farewell Address

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I love the Senate. It is not always a 
beautiful thing, and surely it is not a picture of a well-oiled 
machine, but years ago I found a home here. As my colleagues know, I 
first came to the Senate in 1973 as an aide to a young man who had won 
a stunning and very improbable election against a respected incumbent. 
At that campaign victory party 38 years ago--I can remember it as if it 
was yesterday--I thought to myself I would never again believe that 
anything is impossible.
  In the intervening 37 years I have seen a lot of campaigns. I never 
saw one that was as big an upset as Joe

[[Page S7694]]

Biden's. When I started working for Joe Biden that year, I told the 
DuPont Company--that is where I worked--I would take a 1-year leave of 
absence. I stayed for 22 years.
  I will soon be leaving the Senate. I am grateful beyond words to have 
gone through much of Joe Biden's Senate career as his chief of staff 
and observed his career firsthand. I can say if my Senate career had 
ended then, if I had not been called on to serve as his successor, that 
experience, helping to represent Delawareans and fighting for the 
values that Joe Biden and I shared, would have been more than 
fulfilling enough. I would have been happy.
  I thank our leader, Harry Reid, who is most responsible for the most 
historic, productive Congress since FDR. I thank my committee chairs. 
They have been great to me: Pat Leahy, John Kerry, Carl Levin, and Joe 
Lieberman. I especially want to thank my senior Delaware colleague, 
Senator Carper, for whom I have the greatest respect and who has helped 
me tremendously during my last 2 years in all manner of issues. I know 
I am going to alienate some of my Senators, but he is without a doubt 
the best senior Senator in the entire Senate.
  After almost four decades, I think I finally got used to the 
unpredictable rhythms of the Senate. In the short time since I was 
sworn in last January, the Senate has seen heated debate over a basic 
principle under which this body functions--the filibuster. All Members 
are frustrated with the slower pace, and they are right to be 
frustrated when good bills, important bills that promise to help 
millions of Americans, are blocked for the wrong reasons.
  But rule changes should be considered in the light of the fact, which 
we all know, that the Senate is not the House of Representatives. It 
serves a very different constitutional purpose, and the existence of 
the filibuster remains important to ensuring the balanced government 
the Framers envisioned.
  Indeed, the history of the Senate is that of a struggle between 
compromise and intransigence. But this is the place where we protect 
political minorities. This is the place where we make sure the fast 
train of the majority doesn't overrun the minority. While I think there 
are changes, and good changes, that are being considered, I do think 
the filibuster should remain at 60 votes because during the long 
struggle in the Senate, certain traditions have been adhered to by 
Members on both sides of the aisle. Whenever anyone moves to change one 
of those traditions in a way that may diminish the comity under which 
this body must function, I believe they should do it very carefully. I 
know my colleagues will do that.
  Regardless, I continue to have faith that out of the debates in the 
Senate, the fights we are having now, out of the frustrations of some 
of the intransigence of others, we will eventually find our way toward 
the next great compromises we need to solve many of our problems, 
compromises that will keep America great.
  I am incredibly proud of the opportunity I have had to work on 
important issues during the brief service I have had in the Senate. I 
feel especially privileged to have served in this historic Congress, 
when there were so many great challenges facing this country. I have 
been hanging out in this place since 1973. There has not been another 
Congress like the 111th, one where we have dealt with more issues. 
During my first month in office, more than 700,000 Americans lost their 
jobs on the heels of the economic collapse in late 2008.
  People are wondering why are people upset? How soon they forget. Less 
than 2 years ago, 700,000 people lost their jobs in a month, and it was 
not the first month and it was not the last month. Action by the 
Federal Government to stop further decline was critical--and we acted. 
I am proud of my vote on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I 
believe the ARRA worked to arrest the financial free fall to jump-start 
the economy--and if I had another hour and a half, I would show my 
charts and graphs to demonstrate it.
  All across Delaware I have seen the benefits of this law--the 
investments in infrastructure and education and new technologies for 
our future, and I met with the people whose jobs were saved, literally 
met with the people whose jobs were saved or who found new employment 
that flowed from these investments.
  We succeeded in passing many other initiatives to foster growth and 
to bring much needed help to those who have been hit hardest by the 
recession, which was my No. 1 job in the Senate. As Senator Carper 
knows, it is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. We actually did a great many 
things that I firmly believe helped make us a stronger country.
  As you know, as you grow older you realize that life is not about 
what you accomplish or about winning. It is about having tried, and I 
feel good that I tried my very best.
  I was so pleased to work with Senators Leahy and Grassley on the 
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, to chair oversight hearings in the 
Judiciary Committee on law enforcement efforts to pursue financial 
fraud associated with the financial crisis, and to sit with my friend, 
Senator Carl Levin, as he and the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations held hearings on financial fraud. I was honored to be a 
part, as were all of my colleagues, of two Supreme Court confirmation 
hearings for Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
  I had the distinct honor, and it is a true honor, of serving on the 
Foreign Relations Committee with Chairman John Kerry and ranked member 
Dick Lugar, as well as on the Armed Services Committee with Chairman 
Levin and Senator John McCain.
  I made two trips to Israel and the Middle East, three trips to 
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and four trips to Iraq in the last 18 months. 
I know a number of things: No. 1, we must build our civilian capability 
for engaging in counterinsurgency, and in this Congress we passed 
legislation to enhance civil-military unity of effort through joint 
training at Camp Atterbury.
  Along with Senator Brownback, I cofounded the Senate Caucus on Global 
Internet Freedom to promote greater access to freedom of expression and 
freedom of press online.
  I also highlight the importance of U.S. public diplomacy efforts, 
especially international broadcasting. As you know, I served on the 
board for 13 years--there is nothing more important in our battle than 
international broadcasting and public diplomacy. I sought to raise the 
awareness of the limitations on press freedom in countries such as 
China and Iran through the passage of resolutions and have coauthored 
legislation funding the development of Internet censorship 
circumvention technology in Iran--getting around the jamming that Iran 
is doing to deny its citizens the right to get information on the 
Internet.
  I have also had the privilege of working to promote science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, education during my 
time in the Senate. As a former engineer, I know firsthand the 
importance of STEM education.
  I spent much of my career in government service, and I decided early 
in my term to come to the Senate floor each week and recognize the 
contribution made to this country by our Federal employees. I honored 
100 great Federal employees from this desk, sharing their stories and 
accomplishments with my colleagues and the American people, and I am 
very pleased that Senator Warner from Virginia is going to be taking 
that on when I leave. I could not have left it to a better person.
  Last but not least, I have tried my hardest to be a voice for the 
average investor and to work for financial accountability and stability 
so our economy can thrive. That is what it is about. We can't thrive if 
we don't have credibility in the markets. I offered legislation with my 
good friend, Senator Johnny Isakson, to curb abusive short selling. I 
gave a number of speeches on this floor, from this desk, calling for 
the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct a comprehensive 
review of equity market structure and high-frequency trading and to 
advance reforms that promote clear and transparent markets--not always 
clear and transparent to everybody listening. As I said from the floor 
dozens of times, it is critical that we preserve the credibility of our 
markets, one of our Nation's crown jewels, if our grandchildren are to 
live in the most economically powerful country in the world.
  Finally, I repeatedly highlighted from the Senate floor the 
importance

[[Page S7695]]

of the problem of too big to fail in the financial reform debate, 
working with my good friend, Senator Sherrod Brown, to offer the Brown-
Kaufman amendment. We made the good fight but, again, trying was better 
than succeeding--not better but the alternative to succeeding, and I 
thank every Senator who voted for that amendment. I am proud of that. 
While our amendment was not agreed to, I will ever be proud of the 
opportunity to work with Senator Chris Dodd and participate in Senate 
debate on financial reform.
  I could not have achieved anything--and I genuinely mean anything--
during my term without the help and hard work of my excellent staff. I 
spoke early this week about the staff. They are vital to our work. I am 
going to tell you as someone who spent years delivering staff work and 
now someone who has been a consumer, I am more impressed than ever with 
my staff, and with Senate staffs and the job they do.
  I want the American people to understand that one of the reasons I 
love the Senate is because it is filled with intelligent, hard-working 
people who are passionate about serving this country. This goes for 
Members and staff alike. The Senate is a magnet for those who feel 
called to public service. It is the destiny for countless improbable 
journeys. Our constitutional Framers would have been relieved to see 
this noble experiment working, to know that in the Senate today serve a 
farmer from Big Sandy, a realtor from Cobb County, a mayor from 
Lincoln, a former Army Ranger from Cranston, a social worker from 
Baltimore, and a doctor from Casper.
  All of them are here for the same reason as the other Senators--
because they love this country and their communities dearly and want to 
give back. Their paths to public service may have been different in 
their first steps just like mine was, but they converged here and this 
is what continues to sustain my faith in the Senate.
  Here this leg in my improbable journey comes to an end. Although I 
leave the Senate as a Member, I will not be leaving the Senate behind. 
I will continue to teach about the institution to my students and 
encourage them to pursue their own path to public service. I will 
continue to speak out on issues that I worked on here because that 
important work, as always, goes on.
  I love the Senate, and I will always cherish the unlikely opportunity 
I had to serve Delaware as its Senator. With deep gratitude to those 
who worked with me and stood by me through my journey--to my staff, to 
my colleagues, to my wife Lynn, to our children, grandchildren--with 
great appreciation to former Governor Ruth Ann Minner and the people of 
Delaware for the responsibility they gave me, and with optimism and 
faith in the future of the Senate and this great Nation, for the last 
time, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.


                     commending Senator Ted Kaufman

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for a variety of reasons, turnover in the 
Senate has been more rapid recently than at almost any other time in 
our history.
  For some of us, the turnover has been the result of elections. For 
some, it has been the result of the passing of Senate legends Ted 
Kennedy and Robert Byrd, and as a result, as well, of filling Senate 
seats once held by our President, Vice President and the Secretaries of 
State and the Interior, while most of us--I think I saw a number of my 
colleagues from the freshman class here earlier listening to my good 
friend and colleague from Delaware--got here through the ballot box. We 
have been blessed to serve with some extraordinary individuals who were 
appointed to serve in this body.
  Perhaps no one stands out more in this regard than our colleague for 
the past 21 months, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Ted Kaufman. But I 
think most of us have come to know Senator Kaufman's service to this 
body extends well beyond the 21 months he served as a Senator.
  In fact, as we just heard from his comments, and he is oft to remind 
all of us freshmen, he actually has spent most of the last 20 years 
serving previously as a Senate staffer.
  No matter how accomplished--I think we have former Governors, former 
State senators, folks who have been superintendent of school boards--no 
matter what our background was before we got to the Senate, we all have 
had a lot to learn about the peculiar institution rules, morays, and 
the flow of this body.
  I think I may speak for some of my colleagues in the class of 2008, 
Ted Kaufman has been an extraordinarily generous resource. He has known 
the rhythms of this institution, has been someone who has counseled us 
at times as our--at least I can speak personally--my head was about to 
explode about some of the process, to kind of sometimes recognize the 
need to tune out some of the ceaseless distraction, to recognize the 
great power of this institution and, as he has demonstrated by his own 
conduct, that sometimes the best path is to simply keep your head down 
and do hard work.
  Senator Kaufman, in his speech, went through the litany of activities 
he has participated in, in that short 21 months. I know we have other 
Members. I wish to speak about two of them, briefly. One was the 
incredibly important role he played on financial reform and, secondly, 
this, I think perhaps much underrecognized but incredibly important 
role, a role he has been kind enough to leave to me, pass the torch to 
me, in terms of recognizing our Federal workforce.
  Senator Kaufman did not serve on the Banking Committee. But in terms 
of nonmembers on the Banking Committee, there was nobody more active in 
financial reform, on a host of issues, than Ted Kaufman. We did not 
always see eye to eye. But nobody approached issues with more 
thoughtfulness, more hard work, and more generosity of spirit, who 
recognized we could have different opinions, but we both realized the 
financial system needed to be dramatically reformed.
  But the area I particularly wish to call attention to is the fact 
that it was Ted Kaufman, before virtually anybody else in this body, 
and for that matter beyond most of the commentators in the financial 
markets, who spotted and identified what could be the first sign of the 
next potential financial crisis, the lack of transparency, particularly 
around high-frequency trading and some of the techniques and tactics 
used by firms to institute that tool.
  As the Member who oftentimes had the privilege, respectively, of 
sitting in the chair on Monday afternoons, I got to be educated by Ted 
Kaufman, as he mentioned earlier, as he went through an explanation of 
the challenges this technique posed.
  Because of his actions and working with Members across the aisle, he 
has raised the attention of the SEC to this very important issue. 
Again, this is an area I hope to pick up the baton on. Because the 
actions of May 6, in terms of the precipitous fall in the stock market, 
could have been that first warning shot, in many ways perhaps due to 
some of the techniques Ted Kaufman has simply said let's bring more 
transparency to.
  Senator Kaufman, as well, has done something that perhaps most of us 
in this institution and, for that matter, most of the 300 million 
Americans do not often pay enough homage and respect to, literally, 
millions of folks who work for the Federal Government.
  As somebody who has committed his whole life to public service, and 
most of that public service in serving the Federal Government, Senator 
Kaufman decided, during his tenure, that each and every week he would 
come down and recognize somebody who works in the Federal Government 
who is a star. He has now recognized over 100 of these Federal 
employees, and Senator Kaufman has again reminded all of us that while 
we have challenges in terms of getting the Federal Government right, we 
still have in the Federal workforce the best in the world. I, again, 
look forward to the honor of picking up that baton.
  Public service is never easy at any moment. But I cannot think of a 
time in my 20 years around public service that its times are tougher 
than now, with a great kind of disregard about many of us who serve. 
But I can think of no better example of someone throughout his whole 
life who exemplified the best of public service, serving the staff 
roll, serving as a Senator,

[[Page S7696]]

constantly calling us to our better angels, recognizing the great 
traditions of this body.
  So while we heard that Senator Kaufman for the last time yielded the 
floor, at least it is my hope, and I believe the hope of many of my 
colleagues, that you will still continue to frequent this institution, 
that you will still continue to be an individual whom we can count on 
for respect, for guidance, and recommendations.
  I have to say that while you will be missed, this body will be 
greatly diminished by your absence. I again wish to salute my 
colleague, I wish to salute my friend, and I thank Senator Kaufman for 
his distinguished service to not only the people of Delaware but to the 
people of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Before I speak about a very critical piece of 
legislation, I wish to join the Senator from Virginia in recognizing 
our friend and colleague from Delaware who has done such an 
extraordinary job in the time he has been here. I wish to associate 
myself with the comments of the Senator from Virginia.
  There is no one who brings more intelligence, passion, commitment or 
generosity of heart than the Senator from Delaware, and the fact that 
he has given his life to public service is something we all thank you 
for. You will be greatly missed.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3706

  Mr. President, I rise this afternoon and join with my friend from 
Rhode Island as well, a cosponsor, to speak about a critical issue 
affecting millions of Americans around the country. That is the 
question of lack of jobs and the need to help those who, through no 
fault of their own, find themselves without a job, trying to hold 
things together for their family, trying to keep moving, looking for 
work at a time that is incredibly difficult for our country.
  So I rise to speak and to offer S. 3706, the Americans Want to Work 
Act, and to ask that our body act on this today--now. Americans want to 
work. That is a fact. That is a fact. People want to work. But this is 
the worst recession in our lifetime, the worst since the Great 
Depression.
  Millions of people are out of work through no fault of their own and 
they need our help. Things are beginning to turn, but it is painfully 
slow, and too many families are caught in the middle. Nationally, we 
know the unemployment rate stands at 9.6 percent, much higher in my 
home State of Michigan. Of those, 42 percent who have been out of work 
have been out of work for more than 27 weeks and many of them, too many 
of them, much longer.
  The reality is, as much as people want to work, there are, frankly, 
not enough jobs. When people say: Well why don't folks get out and get 
a job, go out and get a minimum wage job, the reality is there are five 
people are out of work for every one job that is available. That is a 
fact.
  Now it is better than it was. At one time, it was six for one job 
opening. So we are creeping along. But the reality is we still have 
five people out of work for every one job. It is not their fault that 
they cannot find a job in this circumstance. We know there are about 3 
million jobs available nationally, and there are more than 15 million 
people who need a job. We cannot just walk away from them, from this 
circumstance, caused by an economic tsunami between the crisis on Wall 
Street, between our lack of focus over the last decade on fair trade 
laws.
  We have seen too many jobs being shipped overseas, which we tried to 
address yesterday and could not get any of our Republican colleagues to 
support us on to be able to get past that. There are multiple things 
that have happened but none of them caused by the people who have lost 
their jobs.
  This is a moral issue as well as an economic issue. That is why I 
have authored the Americans Want to Work Act. I wish to thank all the 
cosponsors. First, I wish to thank our majority leader, Senator Reid, 
who has given us the opportunity today to make the case and who 
understands the incredible urgency of this issue, and to Senator 
Schumer as well, who has been a great partner in this effort in 
combining an extension of unemployment benefits with his very 
successful HIRE Act, to be able to give a one-two punch.
  I also wish to thank Senator Brown of Ohio, Senators Casey, Dodd, 
Levin, Reed, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, and Senator Whitehouse. Our bill 
does two things to help people who have been out of work the longest. 
It creates a new tier of unemployment insurance that extends benefits 
for an additional 20 weeks, and it extends and expands Senator 
Schumer's HIRE Act tax credits to encourage companies to hire those 
workers who have been looking for work the longest.
  I realize this is the longest extension of unemployment benefits 
ever. I understand that. But this is also the worst recession in our 
lifetime, and we also need to understand that. I have received so many 
phone calls and letters from people all across my State who are trying 
so hard to get work. They are out every single day pounding the 
pavement or checking the Internet. They are filling out applications. 
They are sending out resumes. They are making phone calls, trying so 
hard to find a job so they can put food on the table for their family 
and, frankly, keep their head above water, try to keep their house 
above water, to be able to have a roof over their head while they are 
looking for work.
  They want to work. They do not want to be getting unemployment 
benefits. They do not want to be in this situation. They want the 
dignity of having a good-paying job so they can provide for themselves 
and their families.
  I wish to share just one of the thousands of stories I received over 
the last month. It comes from Janice in Sterling Heights, MI.

       At the age of 54--

  She writes--

       I have already worked 35 years of my life. Back when I was 
     young, there was always talk of 30 and out. Never once did I 
     dream at my age that I would be unemployed for over a year. 
     That even though I apply for any job I am qualified for, I 
     never hear back. Now, all I have to look forward to is 
     working until the day I die, wondering where my health care 
     is going to come from, and how I am going to be able to 
     continue to pay my bills. I do not know how long I can hang 
     on until my current unemployment benefits run out. I have 
     nothing, nowhere to go, if evicted. I am so angry because I 
     was brought up that working hard all your life is what you 
     are supposed to do to have a home and a family and a 
     retirement.

  That is exactly what we are talking about--people who do nothing but 
work hard and play by the rules and are found in a situation they did 
not create.
  She goes on to say:

       I am angry and disappointed in the government because they 
     are taking away benefits I have expected to be there after 
     working for 35 years and paying into this system.

  There are millions of stories like Janice's, not only in Michigan but 
in every State. We have been working hard to create jobs, to get the 
economy back on track. We have passed, according to Business Week, four 
major jobs bills, including the small business jobs bill passed a 
couple of weeks ago and the President signed on Monday. That is 
expected to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. The reality is we are 
in a situation where the majority of our Republican colleagues voted no 
on the small business jobs bill. Yesterday they blocked our ability to 
bring up a bill to close loopholes, to stop jobs being shipped 
overseas. We now stand asking that they not block again help for people 
who can't find work because this economy is not moving fast enough.
  I hope today my colleagues will join me in passing the Americans Want 
to Work Act. We should not walk away from so many Americans who are 
looking for work and need our help. I urge my colleagues to join us in 
saying yes on something, yes to the millions of Americans who want to 
work.
  I will offer a unanimous consent request in a moment. I yield the 
floor to my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island. Then I wish to 
return to make my unanimous consent request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan for her eloquent words that try to bring into this institution 
some of the difficulties and anxiety and pain

[[Page S7697]]

families in our States particularly are feeling. Because while the 
national unemployment rate is at an atrocious above 9 percent, in our 
States it is considerably worse. In Rhode Island the unemployment rate 
hovers still around 12 percent. This has been a prolonged recession. 
For many Rhode Islanders, they have been out of work for as long as 
unemployment insurance benefits allow. Now they are coming to the end 
of the 99-week period under which they are allowed to recover. The 
plain, unvarnished fact is that the jobs aren't there. In a different 
economy, I might be less impatient with the argument that we have to 
cut off unemployment benefits on folks because, frankly, after a while 
they get lazy. And if we don't cut off the benefits, then they will 
wait around, collecting their unemployment, goofing off and not going 
back to work. That is the argument I hear made against this all too 
often.
  When one is in a State where the jobs simply are not there, where the 
economy has not come close to recovering, then it is not logical, and 
it is heartless and wrong. There are now more than 65,000 Rhode 
Islanders out looking for work. By contrast, the economic recovery bill 
created 11,000 jobs in Rhode Island. It would be far worse were it not 
for the action we took. But when we compare 11,000 families who now 
have jobs and paychecks because of the Recovery Act to the 65,000 still 
wondering when is this economy coming back for me, clearly we have a 
lot of work to do. To extend unemployment benefits for those who have 
run it through is the least we can do.
  I remember visiting not too long ago Network Rhode Island, a job 
placement agency in Pawtucket and speaking to a married couple, a 
middle-age married couple sitting side by side at one of the computer 
screens looking for something. They come in to look every day. They 
have filed hundreds of applications for jobs. They have been unable to 
find anything because of the job market. They said: We are anxious. We 
are running out of our benefits. This was one of those occasions when 
the Republicans had filibustered extending unemployment benefits, 
adding additional funding. I assured them that when we got back we 
would be restoring those benefits, and we would be protecting them 
because we had that commitment and we had that determination. They 
said: No, you can't help us. We are in the 99ers. We have come to the 
end of the duration for which you are allowed to collect unemployment 
benefits.
  I felt helpless, that there was nothing we were doing for them. 
Senator Stabenow and I discussed this problem. She filed this wonderful 
legislation, of which I was an immediate cosponsor. It addresses a 
problem that at least in our States is very real.
  Two of the Rhode Islanders who have written to us and contacted me 
about this have let me use their images. Just so we are not always 
talking about heartless, bloodless statistics on the floor, 12 percent, 
65,000, there are real people behind those statistics. There are real 
families. There are those terrible late nights at the kitchen table 
trying to figure out how you keep the mortgage, how you keep the health 
insurance, what you cut, what you give up. Those are discussions that 
are being had by real families.
  This is Michael Coppola. He lives in Smithfield. He was a truckdriver 
for the same company from 2000 to 2007. He was laid off in October of 
2008 when his unit closed. This month Michael hits the current 99-week 
limit for unemployment insurance benefits. He has had to give up health 
insurance. He is trying to keep up with his mortgage payments so he 
doesn't lose his house and add to the tide of foreclosures sweeping 
across Rhode Island and the rest of the country. His wife is totally 
disabled. As a result, she receives Social Security benefits and that 
is helping them keep the family together. But he wrote me to say:

       Any extension of benefits for people like me who have 
     exhausted their benefits would help allow me to stay in my 
     house, pay my taxes, and [allow me] to regain my health 
     coverage.

  Michael actually took this picture for us so we could have a picture 
here to show on the floor and put a human face on this problem that is 
so often drowned in statistics.
  Here is another Rhode Islander from Portsmouth. This is Nancy 
Babcock. Nancy is 59 years old. She lost her job about 24 months ago. 
She had worked for 15 years steadily in the insurance industry. Next 
week she hits her 99-week limit. She has been able to find a little bit 
of part-time work, but it has not been enough to pay her bills and keep 
her finances afloat. Rhode Island's WorkShare program has permitted her 
to supplement her unemployment insurance benefits with a small amount 
of part-time income. This is a woman who has worked essentially all her 
life, who while on unemployment insurance has tried to find what work 
she could find and was permitted and has continued to look for work. 
She has a bachelor's degree. She has several industry certifications. 
She has extensive background in sales and marketing. Despite the long 
drought of unemployment she has had to live through, so many Rhode 
Islanders have had to live through, she is still out there every day 
looking for work, hoping the economy will turn for her. She has been 
going through the classifieds, beating her feet against the pavement 
trying to get to places where she might get an interview. She has been 
reaching out to friends, doing all the things that families do in this 
circumstance, trying to reach out wherever she can, and still, after 99 
weeks, to no avail.
  I thank Senator Stabenow for her leadership. In a better world, this 
would be an easy thing and the unanimous consent to allow us to go to 
this bill and extend these unemployment insurance benefits would be 
uncontroversial. It should be clear to anybody that these people have 
lost their jobs and have been out of work for this lengthy period 
through no fault of their own. Michael was not fired for cause. Nancy 
didn't lose her job because she did something wrong. The people who did 
something wrong were in Wall Street, with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, creating phony baloney securitization of home mortgages. 
Most of them got bailed out. The banks are back rolling, firing off the 
big bonuses, reporting huge earnings, not loaning much money yet but 
taking care of their folks, rolling in the paychecks and the bonus 
checks. They are back on their feet again. But for the people who got 
clobbered by the tsunami of economic catastrophe that the Wall Street 
implosion and the housing implosion set off, they are still being 
washed around. Nobody has bailed them out.
  Let's extend the unemployment insurance they have been contributing 
to, that they are a part of. Let's help our fellow Americans weather 
this unique financial storm.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. 
He is correct. The folks at the top got bailed out, and middle-class 
families are stuck on the hook. Five people looking for every one job. 
It is critical that we act. I am hopeful that instead of hearing 
another round of no, we will hear yes and that people will come 
together. There are millions of people out of work who have hit this 
wall. They are in every State. They are in red States, blue States, 
purple States. They are in every State. This should not be a partisan 
issue.
  On behalf of millions, at least 2 to 3 million people who find 
themselves in this particular situation, who are asking us to 
understand, who are asking us for help, asking us to give a lifeline to 
them so they can care for their families and get back to work, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from S. 
3706, the Americans Want to Work Act; that the Senate then proceed to 
its immediate consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, 
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statement 
relating to the measure be printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I ask 
of my colleague from Michigan a couple of questions.
  Ms. STABENOW. Yes.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. We have just been handed this. I wonder if my colleague 
could let us know what the cost of this bill is and how it is paid for.
  Ms. STABENOW. The bill is designated, as other unemployment 
extensions have been designated, as emergency spending, just as we 
would do for

[[Page S7698]]

any other catastrophe. If 15 million people out of work isn't an 
economic disaster, I don't know what is. For the millions involved, 
this is viewed as disaster assistance. We intend to move forward with a 
sense of urgency to put people back to work so in fact we will turn 
this economy around.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Respectfully, without knowing how much it is going to 
cost and how we will pay for it, while we are all certainly sympathetic 
and want to work to make people go back to work--my home State of 
Florida is certainly suffering with very high unemployment--we need to 
know what it is going to cost and how we will pay for it so we don't 
put the debt on our children and grandchildren.
  I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the reality for us in America is that we 
will never get out of debt. We will never get out of debt with more 
than 15 million people out of work. We know it is substantially more 
than 15 million. We know there are millions of others who have 
exhausted their benefits. When folks talk about the deficit and leaving 
the deficit for our children, we will never get out of debt in this 
country until people get back to work, until they have good-paying 
jobs. And in between time, we will not move this economy forward until 
we are helping people to keep going in this recession.
  We know from the economists that for every $1 we put into the kinds 
of benefits we are talking about in this bill, we are stimulating more 
than $1.40 into the economy. So it more than pays for itself by the 
economic activity, and it is viewed as one of the top two best ways to 
stimulate the economy in a recession: to put money in the pocket of 
people who have to spend it because they do not have a job.
  I deeply regret that one more time it is ``object'' and it is ``no'' 
under the false argument that somehow we cannot afford to stimulate the 
economy, to understand that this is about Americans who want us to 
understand what they are going through, and to give some temporary 
assistance that does stimulate the economy, while we are focusing on 
putting people back to work.
  Unfortunately, this is the end of a week that demonstrates tremendous 
frustration, after we were able to get the small business jobs bill 
done, and then we hear ``no'' on efforts to stop jobs from going 
overseas, and ``no'' on helping the people caught because their jobs 
went overseas. So I am deeply disappointed. We will continue to bring 
the case of these millions of people to the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. Johanns. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for up to 12 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Johanns pertaining to the introduction of S. 14 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           NASA Authorization

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is a big day because in 
the House, they are about to consider the NASA bill we passed by 
unanimous consent in the Senate back in the first week of August. It is 
on what is called the consent calendar in the House which, in order for 
any of the six items on that consent calendar to be considered, they 
have to pass with a two-thirds vote. They are generally items that are 
less controversial in nature. It is certainly my hope that is going to 
be the case later this afternoon when the House takes up the NASA 
authorization bill.
  This is so important because the new fiscal year starts this Friday, 
October 1, and NASA is without direction. Even though the appropriation 
is going to be decided in our lameduck session starting in November--
probably by taking a whole bunch of appropriations bills and putting 
them together into what is known as an Omnibus appropriations bill and 
therefore the funding for NASA would be determined at that point. But 
this bill, the authorization for NASA for funding, for appropriations, 
is the blueprint, the roadmap. Even though certain appropriations may 
not be available until November or December, this gives direction to 
NASA to know what to do.
  For example, in our bill--there is an additional shuttle that is 
ready to fly beyond the two that are scheduled, one for November and 
one for February. That hardware is ready to go, and there is still 
additional equipment and supplies that we need to get to the space 
station. So our proposal in the authorization bill is, which was agreed 
to by the Senate Appropriations Committee that appropriated very 
closely to what the NASA authorization bill was in the Senate, it gives 
the direction to NASA to go ahead and start the preparations for that 
third flight of which all the hardware is already there. But they have 
to know that. They can't wait around until next January or February to 
start that preparation; they have to start it now. These are some of 
the critical issues.
  It is also critical that, for example, at the Kennedy Space Center, 
there are 1,100 jobs that are going to terminate tomorrow. This NASA 
authorization bill lays out the program for the future so they can 
start planning on some of those jobs that would be lost that may not be 
lost or recalled. That is why it is my fervent hope that we are going 
to get at least, if not more than, two-thirds of the House voting this 
afternoon to pass the NASA bill and then send it to the President for 
signature next week.
  Most of us have seen Ron Howard's dramatic film starring Tom Hanks 
called ``Apollo 13.'' Tom Hanks played the commander of that mission, 
who was Jim Lovell. Remember, that was the mission, Apollo 13, where en 
route to the Moon there was a major explosion onboard. We thought we 
had basically three dead men because how were we going to bring them 
back. It is one of the greatest space successes coming out of failure 
because, real time, astronauts back in Houston and the engineers all 
over America--at the cape, at Houston, all in different NASA 
facilities, the industries, the aerospace corporations--they all came 
together trying to figure out how we were going to get this crippled 
spacecraft back that had just lost its power, that had just lost its 
engines. Of course, that is one of the great success stories, that they 
brought it back, and ``Apollo 13'' chronicles that enormous success.
  Tom Hanks, who is playing Jim Lovell--in a part of the film, a person 
asks Jim:

       Jim, people in my State are asking why we're continuing to 
     fund this space program, now that we've beaten the Soviets to 
     the Moon.

  This is back in the late sixties and seventies because, remember, it 
was President Kennedy who said: We are going to the Moon. And we landed 
well before the Soviet Union did. They tried, but they never could make 
it. We landed in 1969.
  That person said:

       Jim, people in my State are asking why we're continuing to 
     fund this program, now that we've beaten the Soviets to the 
     Moon.

  What does Jim Lovell say? He said:

       Imagine if Christopher Columbus came back from the new 
     world--and no one ever returned in his footsteps.

  If we had not had discoverers who were willing to discover the 
unknown, if they had not gone back to the new world, we would not be 
here today. We would not have this wonderful country that has been 
built.

[[Page S7699]]

  I think it is a truth that a society which does not seek to expand 
and explore is not going to be a society that will foster freedom and 
creativity, individuality, or progress.
  Think about the birth of this Nation. We are, by nature as Americans, 
our character is that we are explorers, we are adventurers. We set out 
and explored this Nation, following the longings of our souls. And each 
generation born since has advanced constantly and consistently, such 
that today we have to decide where do we go next.
  This country always had a frontier. When John F. Kennedy announced 
that we were going to the Moon, he had an administration that was 
called the New Frontier. We remember the development of this country. 
The frontier developed westward. Where is that frontier now? That 
frontier is upward. Then with the discoveries we are finding in 
science, it is also inward. It is the discovery of matter. It is the 
discovery of the workings of the human body and how to keep it healthy. 
And it is the exploration upward of space.
  What President Kennedy said was:

       The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in 
     it or not.

  He said:

       It is one of the great adventures of all time--and no 
     nation which expects to be the leader among other nations can 
     expect to stay behind.

  Since those prophetic words of President Kennedy back in the early 
sixties, when the Soviet Union had beat us into space with the first 
satellite and then beat us into space with the first human to orbit, we 
see what this Nation has done. Look at what we have received on Earth 
from the first 50 years of exploring space. We went to the Moon, and we 
have gone beyond. We have gone out of the solar system with exploring 
satellites, spacecraft. During this time, this space program has 
produced thousands of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. And it 
has helped make our Nation one of the most advanced and powerful in 
history. It has advanced the cause of science, and it has dramatically 
improved the quality of life on the surface of the Earth.
  Why do you think we have the GPS that can tell us, at a moment, the 
pinpoint location of where we are? Why do you think we now take it for 
granted to turn on our TVs and have instant, uninterrupted 
communication on the other side of the globe real time? Why do you 
think we take it for granted that we turn it on if we hear of an 
inbound hurricane and that we can also monitor climate change?
  We now, fortunately, have airbags in our automobiles. We have modern 
medical miracles such as kidney machines and heart ultrasound equipment 
and LASIK surgery. Where do you think all these things came from? They 
came from the spinoffs of the development of technology for the space 
program.
  Look at a little watch such as this, which I have had for years. That 
came out of the microminiaturization revolution. Where did that come 
from? Back when we were going to the Moon, we had to develop highly 
reliable systems that were small in volume and light in weight. That 
set off the microminiaturization revolution.
  As a result of all these spinoffs, we have created new companies and 
tens of thousands--hundreds of thousands of jobs for skilled workers.
  Back in the summer, working with the White House, we developed this 
bipartisan legislation to get NASA on what we think is off the wrong 
track and on the right track. As I said in my opening comments, the 
House is taking up the Senate bill in about an hour, hour-and-a-half.
  What the President did was he declared Mars to be the ultimate goal. 
The goal is not to go back to the Moon. We were there 40 years ago. The 
goal is to get out of low-Earth orbit, get out of Earth's environment, 
and to explore the cosmos. The Senate bill provides the blueprint for 
NASA to lead the way for humans to explore beyond low-Earth orbit.
  We recognize that more nations and more commercial operators can get 
into space. Look at all the private services now that you can get from 
a satellite: photographs of the ground, photographs of buildings--
incredible--high-resolution photography. You can buy that from private 
companies.
  The Presiding Officer used to be a major radio broadcaster off of a 
satellite radio. Where do you think that comes from? That was developed 
with technology that came out of the early days of the space program. 
That has been perfected and is now a multibillion-dollar business that 
employs Americans. Clearly, the Cold War shaped our space program to 
begin with--we against our adversary, the Soviet Union, the two 
nuclear-tipped nations. Look now. We have built the International Space 
Station with the Russians and 14 other nations.
  Now we have the space station there but the shutdown of the space 
shuttle coming in another year. The space station is being completed in 
its construction, but NASA was starved over the last decade, and we do 
not have the new rocket ready. This legislation is going to reduce the 
time we have to depend on Russia for access to space, even though they 
have been a good partner, and their Soyuz spacecraft is a reliable way 
to get to and from the space station. It is going to shorten the time 
we have to depend just on them to get to the International Space 
Station.
  As a result of this new legislation, many of the space centers that 
would receive huge layoffs--and as I said at the outset, there are 
1,100 pink slips that have been delivered and take effect tomorrow 
afternoon just at the Kennedy Space Center and 1,000 or so more are 
coming at the Johnson Space Center and other space centers around. So 
what our legislation will do is it will push NASA's development of a 
new heavy-lift rocket that will allow us to explore the cosmos, it will 
push it forward with a goal to fly by 2016, and it would make a 
significantly higher investment in commercial space ventures, 
specifically by accelerating the development of commercial carriers to 
take both cargo and crew to and from the International Space Station.
  Previously, NASA was going to shut down the space station by 2015. 
This is 2010, almost 2011. We are just completing the space station. 
Are we going to throw away, in 4 years, an investment of $100 billion? 
No. What this bill does, upon the suggestion of the President--which I 
appreciate so much--it is going to keep the space station alive until 
the year 2020.
  Now we have the time to move forward and start to get out and explore 
the cosmos. The bill develops the inspace technology that can help in 
the servicing and reusing of equipment to lessen the need to launch 
from Earth for future trips. By that I mean we take this heavy-lift 
vehicle, we get components up into low-Earth orbit, and in the zero 
gravity of the orbit with the capability of on-orbit refueling, we can 
put spacecraft together up there and not have to expend the energy to 
get out of gravity when we go out to an asteroid or we go out 
ultimately to Mars. It requires that this heavy-lift vehicle be 
designed to get us to other points beyond low-Earth orbit in a flexible 
path to Mars.
  Rather than throw away the investments and capabilities that have 
already been developed in this space shuttle, we direct NASA in this 
bill, to pursue an evolvable heavy-lift vehicle, one you can build from 
the existing technology but you can improve that hardware.
  At the same time, we insist that it be affordable. Designing and 
building within a budget is obviously the new challenge for NASA. NASA, 
too long in the past, has blown through budgets. It is a different day. 
It is a different discipline. That discipline is going to be needed at 
NASA.
  Our objectives are now beyond just getting to and being in space. We 
must now answer some questions. Can we harness new sources of energy in 
space for use there and for use here on Earth? Can we sustain human 
life on distant journeys? Present technology would take us 10 months. A 
crewmate of mine is working on a plasma rocket that will take us to 
Mars in 39 days. But the fact is, once we are there, we have to be on 
the surface of Mars for a year. Why? Because of the alignment of the 
planets, to get Mars back closest to Earth for the return trip. Can we 
sustain that human life? Can we develop the technology for those 
journeys? What about all the cosmic radiation from the Sun--nuclear 
explosions. You can't fry your astronauts with radiation on the way to 
Mars. Can we establish permanent outposts beyond Earth?
  Our vision is, we are going to explore asteroids, possibly go back to 
the

[[Page S7700]]

Moon, and then to the surface of Mars, as this country, as the leader, 
and the rest of humanity journey toward the ultimate destiny in the 
stars.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I ask consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             THE FILIBUSTER

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we are only a few weeks away now from the 
November elections. Therefore, this is a time for reflection. For me, 
it is a time to recognize I am nearly through my first 2 years as a 
Senator. I must say it is an incredible privilege to come and be part 
of this debate among these 100 colleagues, representing our 50 States.
  It is also time to ponder whether that debate works as well as it 
might. The Senate is famed as the greatest deliberative body in the 
world, but I have seen too little deliberation and too much 
dysfunction. At this time, as we prepare to return back home to our 
citizens, to talk to our folks back home about the upcoming elections 
and the ideas they have, it is also time to think about when we come 
back, after these elections, after a new Congress comes in next 
January, how can we make this Senate work better as a deliberative 
body.
  My perspective is affected not just by the time I spent here since 
January 2009 but by the perspective of first coming here in 1976 as an 
intern for Senator Hatfield. So I thought I would compare the use of 
what is commonly termed the ``filibuster'' between the 1975-76 session 
and our last complete session, the 2007-2008 session. We had in that 
2007-2008 session the use of the filibuster on amendments 30 times. But 
if I turn the clock back to 1975-1976, 35 years ago, the number was 
zero. There were zero filibusters. Then, on motions to proceed, there 
were 3 in 1975-1976; there were 49 in 2007-2008.
  You get the picture. Not only is there a huge increase in the use of 
the filibuster to block final votes but also a huge increase to stop 
votes on amendments and a phenomenal increase to stop getting to a bill 
at all. Again, it was only used 3 times 35 years ago but 49 times in 
the 110th Congress.
  We cannot have a democracy that works if we can't debate and vote on 
bills. I have been pondering this. I have been pondering how first we 
need to understand how these rules work. I used the term 
``filibuster,'' and indeed with that term everyone pictures ``Mr. Smith 
Goes to Washington.'' He stops a vote by continuing to speak, hour 
after hour. But that is not actually how the rules work in the Senate. 
The responsibility to block a vote, if you will, is not by those who 
object to the regular order, who object to a vote of 51, but it is on 
the majority to summon a supermajority.
  So take that notion of a filibuster and continuous speaking and set 
that aside because that is not the way it works in this body. The way 
it works is if a single Senator objects to the regular order of 51, 
then the majority must obtain a supermajority of 60 to proceed. That is 
why you do not see folks holding the floor day and night to block a 
vote--because they do not have to. It is because the burden is on the 
majority to get 60 votes to proceed.
  This does a lot of damage. It does a lot of damage in terms of delay 
because when that single Senator says I object to the regular order of 
51 and demands 60, not only under the rules do they trigger a 60-vote 
requirement but they also trigger a 1-week delay.
  So you can imagine on a single bill, such an objection on a motion to 
proceed, an objection on one or two amendments, objection on final 
passage, and you now have a month wasted in this body without a final 
vote, with no terrific intervening debate because those who are 
objecting do not need to stay on the floor and make their case. Not 
only does this do a tremendous amount of damage to our responsibility 
as a Congress, as a legislative body, but it does a lot of damage to 
the other branches of government because it means we cannot process the 
nominations for the judicial branch. So, many judgeships are sitting 
empty as a result.
  It means we cannot proceed to the nominations of folks for the 
executive branch. So a President probably gets the Secretaries in 
place, but often the second and third tier positions that develop the 
policy and execute the work, implement the plans, those positions are 
often vacant. There is nothing in our Constitution that says the right 
to advise and consent and indeed the responsibility to advise and 
consent gives this body the right to do damage to the other two 
branches of government. Indeed, it is an abuse of our responsibility to 
do so.
  There are a number of things we should think about. I would like to 
applaud my colleagues who are putting forward so many ideas: Chuck 
Schumer, the chair of the Rules Committee, is holding hearings; Tom 
Udall, who is carrying our red rule book and studying it and thinking 
about the ways we can change this body; Amy Klobuchar, who has 
recognized for a long time that dysfunction is different than 
deliberation; Michael Bennet from Colorado, and many others--my 
colleague, Al Franken, who is presiding. So many in the freshman and 
sophomore classes recognize this body needs to change so we can do the 
work we are expected to do by the American people.
  So what are some of those ideas? One is to greatly reduce the use of 
the supermajority, which I will call it, because it is a much more 
accurate description than the filibuster. Reduce the use of the 
filibuster on nominations. Perhaps it should not be used on any 
nominations except perhaps to the Supreme Court. But find a line and a 
method to expedite nominations.
  Second, reduce the use of the filibusters on motions other than final 
consideration of a bill. There should not be a question about whether 
we get to the point of debating a bill or whether we get to vote on 
amendments because at each of those points, everyone would obtain or 
retain the final power to oppose or trigger a supermajority on the 
final vote.
  Then, in regard to the ability to proceed to trigger a supermajority 
on the final vote, put the responsibility squarely on the minority. It 
should not be the majority's responsibility to get a supermajority. At 
least those who are objecting should have to maintain a large number of 
Senators continuously on this floor day and night. If they believe so 
much that it is so wrong to proceed to a final vote, they should have 
the courage and dedication to be here in a substantial number day and 
night to make their point to the American people.
  Let the American people respond to that demonstration of saying: Yes, 
we are with you or, no, we are not, and let that final vote happen. We 
have an issue about participation of the minority, and this is an 
extremely important point. I have heard many of my colleagues across 
the aisle say: We are not guaranteed the opportunity to have 
amendments. Well, that is a fair point. What if we were to have in this 
body a fallback rule so that if the majority leader and the minority 
leader could not reach agreement on the number of amendments and the 
content of those amendments to be considered, that there would be a 
fallback position that both parties would get 5 amendments, or both 
parties would get 10 amendments, so that we could proceed back and 
forth--a Republican amendment, a Democratic amendment, a Republican 
amendment, a Democratic amendment, a debate for an hour and a vote, 
debate for another hour and another vote, therefore, having to respond 
and take positions on the issues of the day rather than seeing this 
Chamber, without action, paralyzed.
  These are the types of ideas that we need to wrestle with. We who are 
privileged to be here as delegates from our States have a 
responsibility to our citizens not just in our State but all the 
citizens of this Nation to make this Chamber the deliberative body that 
was envisioned by the Framers of our Constitution.
  That is why next January, when we come in to start the next session, 
the 112th Congress, we need to have a major debate over our rules. We 
need to recognize that under the Constitution it only takes 51 Members 
of this body to adopt new rules. But in that context we have to do 
honor to the ability of the minority party, whichever party that is, to 
fully participate in the process.
  This situation in which the House passes 300 bills that never see the 
light

[[Page S7701]]

of day, never see consideration in the Senate because we cannot get 
anything done on the floor of the Senate, must end. We have a 
responsibility to restore this body to being the greatest deliberative 
body on the planet.
  I yield the floor, and I subject the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Management of Arlington National Cemetery

  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I am here to talk just 
briefly about an issue to which I think I have actually found the 
solution, the one thing that I think we can all agree on, and maybe 
either before we leave or during the lameduck we can work together on 
something I think is troubling for everybody of both parties.
  I rise to speak today about an extremely important issue that has 
bothered me as somebody who continues to serve in the military, and 
others who have any affiliation with the military or care deeply as to 
how our military servicemembers are treated after they give the 
ultimate sacrifice; that is regarding the severe mismanagement of the 
Arlington National Cemetery, which has resulted in the mishandling of 
remains of many of America's fallen heroes who have served our country 
and given their lives to keep our Nation safe and our citizens free.
  I want to first take a moment to recognize the work of Senator 
McCaskill, the chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on contracting oversight on this 
issue. She and I have held a hearing on this matter. I have to tell 
you, it was one of the more frustrating hearings I have ever 
participated in, to listen to some of the responses, the cavalier 
answers and lack of dignity paid to the reason we are all here. Then to 
learn that through investigation, the causes of the absurd 
mismanagement and oversight lapses at the cemetery. During that July 
29, 2010, hearing, we took the first step of getting to the bottom of 
what was going on and working to identify real solutions that will make 
sure this never happens again.
  I am pleased to be on the Senate floor today to announce the 
introduction of legislation, Mr. President, I hope you will jump on and 
cosponsor to address these issues and to remedy the problems at 
Arlington National Cemetery, which I am proud to sponsor with Senator 
McCaskill.
  I am sure I do not have to remind everybody listening and watching 
and anyone who serves here after all the reports that continue to be in 
the news about Arlington National Cemetery that has suffered from 
severe dysfunctional mismanagement and lack of established policies and 
procedures.
  I was shocked. I remember during the hearing that they actually still 
keep all of the information on little cue cards, on little index cards. 
I mean, I have something that is a piece of modern technology that we 
can keep everything on in an instant, the way that we communicate 
around the world in an instant. My kids are using it; my grandkids are 
using it. Yet here we are, in one of the most historic cemeteries in 
our country, honoring the people who have given their lives through 
service, and we are on index cards. Not only that, we are burying them 
in the wrong grave.
  Some graves do not even have bodies in them. I mean, come on. Give me 
a break. This bill establishes strict and recurring congressional 
reporting requirements for the Secretary of the Army to provide 
progress on correcting the management, operations, burial 
discrepancies, and contracting issues at the Arlington National 
Cemetery. The act also requires the Comptroller General to report on 
the management and contracts of Arlington National Cemetery and the 
feasibility and advisability of transferring Arlington National 
Cemetery to the Veterans' Administration.
  The enactment of this act will also provide the appropriate 
congressional oversight to make certain that those responsible for 
managing the cemetery are being held accountable and meeting the 
highest standards when it comes to ensuring the proper burial of 
America's fallen men and women.
  We absolutely cannot let this happen again at Arlington National 
Cemetery or any other cemetery. As I said earlier, as a 30-year member 
of the Army National Guard, I have tremendous respect for the men and 
women serving in our Armed Forces. I know you do, too, and every other 
person in this Chamber does who has made the ultimate sacrifice, as 
well as the families who provide the support to allow them to do their 
jobs.
  These systematic problems at the cemetery have tarnished the sacred 
trust and are extremely troubling. Everyone entrusted with the solemn 
obligation has to ensure that the heroes buried at Arlington National 
Cemetery receive the utmost dignity and respect this country can offer.
  Our legislation will help restore that so servicemembers' families 
will never, ever again have to endure such devastating emotional 
turmoil. I can't even imagine what it would be like to say: I am going 
to visit my loved one, and walk in the cemetery and learn the place you 
have been going for years, your loved one isn't even there or is maybe 
over there. The cavalier attitude of the people controlling this 
operation makes me deeply troubled.
  Our legislation will provide assurances to our military members and 
their families that corrective actions are expeditiously implemented 
and that management of the cemetery will be fixed and fixed soon.
  I am hopeful my Senate colleagues will join me and Senator McCaskill 
in supporting this very important piece of legislation. I hope this is 
one piece of legislation we can all agree on and get done and send a 
powerful message to the families and the service men and women who are 
serving that we are not going to let this happen any longer.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Sending Jobs Overseas

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I wish to describe my disappointment 
at the vote yesterday, a vote on whether we were going to shut down the 
drain in this tub of ours down which we are draining American jobs. We 
are trying to create jobs and put new jobs into the economy. Now what 
we have discovered is that the drain is wide open. Even as we talk 
about this, we have American jobs going overseas in search of cheap 
labor. We actually give a tax break in our IRS Code for allowing 
companies to shut their American plant, get rid of their American 
workers, and move jobs overseas. We tried very hard to change that. I 
have tried that in the past on four occasions. Yesterday was the fifth 
vote to say, at least let's stand up for American jobs. Let's not give 
a tax break to move American jobs outside of the country, especially at 
a time when millions of Americans are out of work. Let's not do that.
  The proposal was to shut down that unbelievable tax break. The vote 
was, no, we can't do it. Apparently on the floor of the Senate there is 
plenty of support for Chinese jobs. I didn't notice anybody got up in 
the morning to come to this Chamber to support Chinese jobs. It seems 
to me the hard work here is to support American jobs.
  I see the two leaders. When they wish to seek the floor, I will 
continue my discussion.
  I can't tell you how disappointed I am. Every member of the minority 
voted against a bill that stands up for American jobs and shuts down 
the tax break for moving jobs overseas. We did get 53 votes. In other 
eras of the history of the Senate, that would be enough to pass 
legislation. Here it is not because everything needs 60 votes.
  Let me yield the floor with the understanding that when the leaders 
are completed with their work, I know they have some important work 
trying to wrap up the business of the Senate, I want them to be able to 
do that, and then I will be recognized when their activity transpires.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S7702]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture 
time be considered yielded back and the motion to proceed to H.R. 3081 
be agreed to; that the Senate then proceed to the consideration of H.R. 
3081; that the bill be considered under the following limitations; that 
the only amendments in order be the following: Inouye substitute 
amendment, which is at the desk, and that once the amendment has been 
reported by number, it be considered read and not subject to division; 
Inouye title amendment; DeMint amendment regarding extending length of 
time on the continuing resolution; Thune amendment regarding reducing 
spending levels; that this amendment not be subject to a division; that 
general debate on the bill be limited to 2 hours equally divided and 
controlled between Senators Inouye and Cochran or their designees; that 
debate on each amendment be limited to 30 minutes, equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of all 
the time, the Senate proceed to vote with respect to the amendments to 
the substitute in the order in which they were offered; that each of 
the amendments to the substitute amendment be subject to an affirmative 
60-vote threshold and that if they achieve that threshold, then they be 
agreed to and a motion to reconsider be laid on the table; that if they 
do not achieve that threshold, then they be withdrawn; that upon 
disposition of the amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended, if 
amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and 
the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon 
passage, the title amendment which is at the desk be considered and 
agreed to; further that no Budget Act points of order be in order to 
the substitute or the bill. Further, that if there are any sequenced 
votes, then there be 2 minutes equally divided and controlled in the 
usual form prior to each vote and that after the first vote, the 
remaining votes be limited to 10 minutes each.
  I also want everyone to understand it is my understanding Senator 
LeMieux wants to offer an amendment by consent to this agreement I just 
read.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding he will offer 
that later. We can proceed then.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.


                         Sending Jobs Overseas

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this unanimous consent agreement means we 
are now on a timeline to finish passing a continuing resolution very 
soon. I appreciate the work everyone has done. I do want to finish what 
I was saying.
  It was a profound disappointment to me that after all of this time, 
going back 9 years and five votes, that we were not able to get 
sufficient votes in the Chamber, 60 votes to shut down a tax provision 
that rewards people who actually move their jobs overseas from this 
country. I won't go through the presentations I made previously, but it 
is quite clear that we need, on behalf of the American people, to say: 
Our job is to stand up for jobs in this country. Our work is to help 
people get back to work here and to support businesses which produce in 
this country, which decide to rent the building and hire the employees 
and produce here. That is what we ought to stand for. Yet those who 
produce here and stay here are at a disadvantage, because there is a 
tax break given to those companies that move overseas and hire foreign 
workers and then sell back into this country. That was the debate 
yesterday and the vote. Regrettably, not one Member of the minority 
voted with us. That is a profound disappointment. We will all get over 
that. But the people who are unemployed will not, if these jobs keep 
moving overseas. That is the point.


                     New York Philharmonic in Cuba

  I did want to come for another reason. I will do this quickly. A long 
while ago I was on the floor talking about something that I think 
should happen, and it needs the approval of this government to make it 
happen, the approval of a license to make it happen. That is for the 
New York Philharmonic to be able to perform in Havana, Cuba. It would 
be a wonderful thing. They had to cancel a previous appearance because 
they couldn't get a license from their government to allow them to do 
it.
  Let me describe with a couple charts what brings me to this point and 
the reason I want to talk about it for a moment. This is in the middle 
of the Cold War with Russia. This is Leonard Bernstein and the New York 
Philharmonic shown here performing in Moscow in 1959. It is the oldest 
symphony orchestra in America, since 1842, one of the most renowned 
cultural ambassadors for this country. It has performed all around the 
world in 59 countries on 5 continents. It performed many times in 
Communist countries with the full blessing of the U.S. Government. At 
the height of the Cold War the orchestra was enthusiastically received 
in Moscow. The audience applauded for 30 minutes following their 
performance. Conductor Bernstein took the New York Philharmonic to 
Moscow. Think of it.
  In addition to performing in Moscow, the New York Philharmonic has 
performed elsewhere. They have performed in North Korea. I have seen 
the DVD of that performance. It was quite extraordinary, February of 
2008 in the capital of North Korea, the first ever concert by a U.S. 
orchestra within the boundaries of that secretive state. We know that 
there is a lot wrong with North Korea, but the conductor and the 
president of the Philharmonic told me and a group of Senators that the 
State Department encouraged the visit of this orchestra, assisted with 
arrangements. The concert In Pyongyang was broadcast live on State 
radio and television. They played music by George Gershwin in North 
Korea's capital, even played the Star-Spangled Banner. I saw the video. 
The audience continued to applaud long after the orchestra had 
completed its music and left the stage.
  This is a photograph of Hanoi, Vietnam in 2009.
  The New York Philharmonic orchestra performed there, in Hanoi, 
Vietnam. The demand for tickets was so great they simulcast the concert 
live out on the streets of Hanoi.
  The only country in the world in which the Philharmonic, at this 
point, is not able to perform in is Cuba. They had to cancel a previous 
visit to Cuba in October 2009. It was planned. But it was cancelled 
because they could not get a license from our government to travel to 
Cuba.
  The U.S. government allows anyone, including an orchestra, to travel 
to North Korea, to Iran, to any other country in the world; but you 
have to have a license to travel to Cuba. Why is that the case? Because 
the Castro brothers have stuck their fingers in America's eye for a 
long time. We have an embargo against the country of Cuba, and we 
decided we were going to take care of the Castro brothers in Cuba by 
punishing the American people and restricting their right to travel to 
Cuba, unbelievably, in my judgment. We say to the American people: We 
are going to fix you. We will restrict the rights of the American 
people to travel to Cuba. So they have.
  Senator Enzi and I have a bill with a large number of cosponsors in 
the Senate that would lift that travel restriction.
  The reason I brought this issue to the floor of the Senate today is, 
I feel it is time to get a positive answer from this government--the 
Treasury Department and the State Department--to give a license to the 
New York Philharmonic to make this trip and perform in Havana, Cuba. 
They should not have to keep cancelling their plans because of U.S. 
government restrictions.
  Some say: Well, what is the difference? What matter does it make if 
they are not able to travel? Do you know what? If you watch the DVD of 
the New York Philharmonic performing in North Korea in 2008, and then 
take a look at the clips and the pictures of them in Moscow in 1959, 
and then ask yourself whether it makes a difference for us to be able 
to send, in a cultural exchange, this wonderful, unbelievably world-
class orchestra to perform in these countries. I think it makes a 
difference.
  We are in a circumstance at the moment where if you do not have a 
license to travel to Cuba, violators, U.S. citizens, can be fined up to 
$50,000 by their government. It does not make any sense to me. That 
needs to change. Criminal penalties could be $250,000 and

[[Page S7703]]

10 years in prison for violating the travel ban. We need to change all 
that.
  In the meantime, I believe this government needs to provide a 
license, and they can do it under existing circumstances without 
changing the policy at all. They need to provide that license to allow 
the New York Philharmonic to be able to perform in Havana, Cuba. I am 
talking to the Treasury Secretary and the Secretary of State and asking 
for their cooperation. This is not something that is difficult. This 
can be allowed under existing rules. Members of the New York 
Philharmonic, and those who work with them and those who sponsor them, 
who would participate fully in the youth programs in Havana, Cuba, can 
be, in my judgment, approved with a license from the Treasury 
Department. I hope Secretary Geithner understands that and will take 
appropriate action. I know the Secretary of State wishes to see this 
happen. I believe the Treasury Secretary would as well. I hope within 
days they will make it happen.
  I intend to work next week with all of those principals to see if at 
last, at long last, we might be able to resolve this issue. This makes 
no sense to me, to decide that the way we are going to conduct 
diplomacy is to prevent our Philharmonic Orchestra from playing in 
Havana, Cuba, given the fact they have played in the capital of North 
Korea, in Russia, in Vietnam, and more.
  Mr. President, I was going to talk a little about energy and my 
profound disappointment that we are going to end this session without 
having done something in energy, and how some of us are trying very 
hard between now and the lameduck session to at least get what is 
called a renewable electricity standard or at least perhaps get that 
plus the Electric Vehicle Deployment Act moving so we can advance our 
country's energy interests. I will find another time to talk about that 
issue.
  I do want to finally say, in addition, before this Congress adjourns 
sine die at the end of the year, there must--there must--be a solution 
to two things. One is the Cobell settlement, because American Indians 
deserve that settlement. It has been negotiated, is done, is ready. 
This is an abuse of 120 and 150 years. It must be corrected, and that 
settlement needs to be done. No. 2, what is called the Carcieri fix 
needs to be resolved.
  My colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, well 
understands this. Every Indian tribe that was recognized after 1934 has 
every parcel of land they took into trust since that time now in legal 
question. The Congress cannot possibly leave this session without 
addressing that issue. The issue arises from a court decision that in 
my judgment was wrong, but it places in jeopardy a wide range of 
facilities on Indian reservations with respect to the status of their 
property ownership and their lease. I hope and I know Senator Inouye 
shares my feelings that we must, before the end of this year, address 
both of these issues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish the Record to show that I concur 
fully with my colleague and that I will do my absolute best to see that 
his views are carried out.

                          ____________________