[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 136 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5594-S5616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE BURMESE 
          FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003--MOTION TO PROCEED

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

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of a joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 66) approving the renewal of import 
     restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy 
     Act of 2003.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to speak about the need to have 
a disaster assistance effort to support those in New York, your State, 
as well as across the country and the tremendous needs we have as a 
result of what has happened regarding the weather. This year we have 
seen a terrible string of natural disasters that have shut down 
businesses, farms, and left families homeless all across our country. 
As chair of the Agriculture Committee, I am particularly focused, of 
course, on what has happened to our farmers in America.
  I am concerned about the flooding along the Mississippi and Missouri 
Rivers, the record droughts that have devastated the livelihoods of men 
and women who grow our food all across America. Earlier this year we 
had the worst drought in recorded history in Oklahoma, with about $1.6 
billion in crop losses. In Kansas I have had the opportunity, and my 
staff has, to join with my ranking member, my colleague, Senator 
Roberts, to talk with folks and a chance to see that the drought had 
wiped out about $2 billion in crops.
  Floods in the Mississippi River Valley washed over 3 million acres--3 
million acres--of farmland. Hurricane Irene destroyed more than 450,000 
acres of cotton and 300,000 acres of corn in North Carolina. In New 
York we have seen similar damage to corn, soybeans, alfalfa, fruits, 
and vegetables. In Vermont crop losses are estimated at more than $5 
million.
  All across our country we have serious challenges that are creating 
hardships for our businesses, our farmers, and our families. We need to 
respond. That is our responsibility. Right now the droughts are worse 
in Texas where the damage is also in the billions of dollars. We have 
more than 1,000 homes that have been lost.
  Already this year there have been natural disasters in 48 of our 
States--48 out of 50 States have had natural disasters. Michigan, thank 
goodness, is one of the two States that has not been affected by the 
weather. But throughout our Nation's history when men and women in one 
part of the country were hit with a natural disaster, all of America 
came together to support them and to help rebuild.
  That is what this effort is about, coming together as Americans. That 
is who we are as Americans. We stand with each other in times of 
trouble. This is not the time to play politics, not when hundreds of 
thousands of families, farmers, and businesses have been devastated by 
an unprecedented string of floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, 
and other natural disasters.
  Already, FEMA has had to halt rebuilding efforts in 41 States. So it 
is critical that we get this done. This legislation in front of us 
needs to pass, and it needs to pass quickly.
  But I also want to tell you about another emergency that has taken 
place in my State and in too many other States. It is called a jobs 
emergency. We may not have been affected by the natural disasters of 
the weather, but as we look over the last decade in a global economy, 
as the economy has changed we have been through the same kind of 
devastation--over a longer period of time, but our people are affected 
as much as any other State disaster.
  We have 14 million people out of work in this country--14 million 
people out of work. We have a huge national deficit. We will never get 
out of debt with more than 14 million people out of work. We have to 
make smart decisions on cutting what is not important, and we have to 
grow. We have to create jobs for people and support the efforts of the 
private sector to create jobs.
  For each and every one of those families, their job search is an 
emergency. It is an emergency every time they think about how to put 
food on their table. It is an emergency every month when they have to 
scrape together money for the rent or the mortgage. It is an emergency 
every minute of every day when those men and women are filling out 
applications, going to job fairs, trying their best to get back to 
work.
  So I find in the middle of all of this, in the middle of support for 
all that is going on around the country in terms of natural disasters, 
it is extremely concerning--and in fact outrageous to me--that the 
House Republicans have proposed a job-killing offset to pay for the 
help that is critically needed for natural disasters; that would pull 
the rug out from under businesses and families all across our country 
and put up to 50,000 American jobs at risk. That is what they are 
proposing.
  I absolutely oppose this. They propose paying for this critical 
disaster bill by taking dollars out of a very successful advanced 
manufacturing retooling program that we passed in the 2007 Energy 
bill--and it took a while to get it up and going. The previous 
administration never administered it. I thank the Obama administration 
for coming in in 2009 and beginning the process of putting it together 
and all of the rules it took, and so on. So it took a while to get up 
and going. It has not moved as fast as I would like at all. But, thank 
goodness, the Obama administration saw it as a priority and has moved 
forward to put it in place.
  So what has happened already? Well, these retooling loans have meant 
41,000 jobs in Tennessee, California, Indiana, Michigan, Delaware, 
Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, and Missouri. These retooling loans have 
helped companies retool older manufacturing plants to build the 
products of the future in America rather than shipping those jobs 
overseas. It has been extremely successful.
  In Michigan retooling loans made it possible for Ford Motor Company 
to save 1,900 jobs at the Michigan assembly plant in the city of Wayne 
so they could build the all new Ford Focus and the battery-electric 
Focus in America. In the process of that, as we partnered with them on 
battery funding as well--in the process of that, with the help of these 
retooling loans they are bringing jobs back from Mexico to support the 
work they are doing on the new vehicles.
  I do not know how many economic development efforts we can stand on 
the Senate floor today and talk about in the Senate or House that are 
actually bringing jobs back from overseas. This is the program that the 
House Republicans want to cut. This loan--and it is a loan, so it has 
to be repaid--is allowing them to be able to have lower costs to be 
able to do the retooling on those older plants, to be able to make 
these new high-tech vehicles.
  As I said, in the case of the Ford Motor Company, they have saved 
1,900 jobs and are bringing jobs back from Mexico. Another Michigan 
company, Severstal North America, was able to secure a retooling loan 
to retool an old steel mill, the Rouge steel mill in Michigan, into a 
cutting-edge plant building advanced, high-strength steel for 
automotive production.
  Jobs here. That does not count what is happening in States across 
America. That loan, along with private loans and a billion-dollar 
investment from the company, will help create over 2,500 constructive 
jobs and will bring the total number of permanent manufacturing jobs at 
that plant, again, to

[[Page S5595]]

1,900. That is a pretty good investment from a loan that is going to be 
paid back while creating jobs.
  These are the kinds of things that we need to be doing--we need to be 
doing--to address the jobs emergency that Michigan and States all 
across the country are feeling and have been feeling. Right now there 
are 35 to 40,000 jobs at stake in this proposal by the House 
Republicans.
  We have other companies that want to use the retooling loans to make 
things in America--in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Louisiana, and 
Florida. These loans are expected to be approved in the next few 
months. They are very close, and we would see 35 to 40,000 jobs 
disappear--the opportunity for those jobs to disappear--if we were to 
accept the House proposal.
  After the next round of manufacturing retooling loans, we could see 
another 10,000 jobs created across the country. But if these retooling 
loans do not happen, those jobs will not happen either. To add insult 
to injury, these companies have been working closely with the 
Department of Energy, in some cases for several years, in order to 
qualify for these loans.
  They have had to undergo the must rigorous screening to make sure the 
products and companies are in sound financial shape, as they should. We 
need to make sure they are going through rigorous screening not only so 
they can be successful but to make sure that we are making products in 
America. It is an important project and partnership.
  These companies have invested countless hours and, frankly, a lot of 
money to get these projects off the ground and to get to this point. As 
I indicated, we have a number of companies in States around the country 
that are within a month or 2 months or 3 months from being able to 
complete the deal and create the jobs.
  We are so close, and the rug will be pulled out from under not only 
the companies but the communities and the families who are affected. 
These businesses are America's job creators. They are doing the right 
thing. They want to invest in America. While others have been on the 
sidelines waiting, they have jumped in. They are committed to creating 
jobs. They want to make things here, and they have moved through a 
process, spent time, money--a tremendous amount of time. In fact, in my 
judgment, it hasn't moved as fast as it should. But they are now at a 
point to actually make it happen.
  I am outraged that we would see an effort to end the creation of 
these jobs. There is no question, as I said, that we have had a series 
of natural disasters, and families, businesses, and farmers who are 
affected across this country. Even though those natural disasters, 
fortunately for us, did not come to Michigan, I support the effort to 
address them. We are all in this as Americans. But I will not--I will 
not--support an effort that, in the process, takes tens of thousands of 
jobs away, because the crisis for Michigan is a jobs crisis. We were 
the first ones in it. We have been in it the longest. We are coming out 
of it now but way too slowly. We are coming out of it because we have 
been creating partnerships to support the private sector to make things 
in America again.
  I strongly urge everyone involved not to come forward with something 
that will in fact jeopardize these jobs. It makes absolutely no sense 
to me, and it is certainly something I will strongly oppose if it does.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that I speak as if in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              IRS Tax Scam

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, there is a tax scam that is 
going on in this country for which you certainly have to give some 
creativity to these thieves and robbers--and that is exactly what they 
are.
  I first started to get wind of this when people in the Tampa Bay 
region of my State called in saying an interesting thing happened. They 
had sent in their income tax return, and they got back a notice from 
the IRS that their return had already been filed. What they found out 
was that somebody had stolen their Social Security number, had in their 
name filled out a tax return, and then, guess what. It showed they had 
a tax refund due.
  When I started hearing from about 25 or 30 people, I knew there was 
something going on. Sure enough, law enforcement in the Tampa Bay 
region--the sheriff's office, the city police, combined with the State 
attorney and the U.S. Attorney--a couple of weeks ago had a bust and 
arrested 49 people who were in a scam whereby they procure people's 
Social Security numbers. What is unbelievable is the amount of money 
they were getting back, estimated at being, just in the Tampa Bay 
region, something like $100 million in refunds. That is a rip-off of 
the American taxpayer because that is their money.
  But the story doesn't stop there. Oh, if you were one of the victims 
whose Social Security number had been stolen and you wanted to file 
your tax return, the IRS is telling you you can't do it because you 
have already filed a tax return. Guess what a nightmare that is for the 
legitimate taxpayer.
  So we have filed legislation. A number of Senators have joined me. 
No. 1, one of the unbelievable things was that it was difficult to get 
the IRS to cooperate with the local and State law enforcement agencies, 
because the IRS is prohibited because of privacy from sharing any of 
this information. And, of course, we want to protect the privacy of 
people, but we also want to go after these crooks.
  We had done it a few years ago with regard to inmates in the Federal 
prison system by allowing the IRS, under the law we passed back in 
2008, to cooperate with the Federal prison system in order to get the 
inmates who were filing false tax returns to get tax refunds. That was 
extended administratively into the State prison system with the IRS. 
But then this has been taken to a new level, one in which it is a great 
rip-off of the taxpayers.
  What was incredible is when the Tampa police department and the 
sheriff's department ended up arresting some of these people, it was as 
if they didn't know they had done anything wrong.
  What is going on? They did not know they had done anything wrong, and 
they are driving around in BMWs, with Rolex watches and gold chains all 
over them. It is the use of tools in the electronic age just the same 
as yesterday, when the thief used a crowbar to break in and steal 
somebody's possessions. This has to stop.
  What we do not know is the extent to which this is all over the 
country. So the first thing we have to do is get the legal ability for 
the IRS, without divulging people's private financial information, to 
be able to cooperate with local and State law enforcement and the U.S. 
attorney to be able to go after these people, to identify them so the 
U.S. attorney and the State attorney can prosecute.
  Additionally, we have to help the victims. In this legislation we 
filed, we say the IRS will give the victims a special PIN number so 
they can file a return and that PIN number will identify them as a 
victim and it will not be kicked out of the system.
  Additionally, since so much of this is being done electronically, we 
have to give the taxpayer the option to file what we called in the old 
days a paper tax return and in the process see if we can stop this; 
otherwise, if $100 million has been stolen from the American taxpayer 
just in the Tampa Bay region of Florida, you can imagine how extensive 
this crime probably is across the entire country.
  It is important we act and that we get to the bottom of it. If we 
pass a law, a crook will try to figure out a way to get around it. But 
when somebody in this electronic age can just sit at a computer, steal 
a Social Security number and then file a false tax return, enough is 
enough.

[[Page S5596]]

  It is my delight to see my colleague from Maryland. It looks as if he 
has some good stuff to tell us.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I am not sure it is good stuff, but it 
is what has happened in our State. I thank the Senator from Florida for 
his leadership on so many of these issues and his comments on the floor 
of the Senate.
  About 2 weeks ago, right before Hurricane Irene struck, I was at the 
Maryland Emergency Management Center located in Reisterstown, MD. I was 
with Governor O'Malley, the Governor of our State, and other leaders. I 
saw our team there to prepare the people of Maryland for the onslaught 
of Irene and later from Tropical Storm Lee. I saw Maryland preparing 
the best it possibly could to minimize the risk to the people of our 
State from a natural storm. I saw the local officials do the right 
thing and tell people in our coastal areas to evacuate their homes 
because of the potential risk to life and property from this massive 
storm.
  I also saw another agency that was located right there, side by side 
with the Maryland agencies, and that was FEMA, the Federal officials. 
These were people I met for the first time. They were not from 
Maryland. They had come in from other States to help the people of 
Maryland and provided the expertise to our State officials so we could 
properly prepare for this storm that was potentially damaging to the 
people of Maryland. They were there.
  I thank President Obama for declaring, before the storm hit, 
emergency declarations to Maryland so we could utilize Federal 
resources and we could take maximum steps to minimize the loss of life 
and property. It was the right thing to do.
  I take this time on the floor--I am going to talk a little bit about 
the damages that occurred in my State--to point out that we have always 
come together as a nation to stand by those who have been devastated 
through these natural disasters. This has been a particularly rough 
year. We have seen hurricanes and storms and tornadoes and flooding and 
even an earthquake on the east coast of the United States. This has 
challenged our ability to respond in a timely way. We have a 
responsibility to make sure our Federal agencies have the resources to 
respond--how they were able to be about Maryland before the storm, 
during the storm and after the storm and they are there now to help the 
people of Maryland. Our governments--our local governments, our 
businesses, and our residents are counting on that continued Federal 
purpose to get us through this very difficult period.
  Hurricane Irene caused severe storms, flooding, and strong winds in 
the State of Maryland. It was followed by Tropical Storm Lee, which 
aggravated the flooding and other damage throughout the State, 
including damage to roads, water treatment plants, and agriculture. Our 
agricultural community was hit hard. Our water treatment facilities, 
the plants we depend upon to keep our waters clean and to keep our 
neighborhoods safe, were damaged severely by this storm. I have talked 
to our transportation people. Roads were knocked out. Damage was 
caused.
  On the Eastern Shore of Maryland, as I have already indicated, there 
was a mandatory order for evacuation of Ocean City the weekend before 
the Labor Day weekend, resulting in heavy economic losses during one of 
the most profitable periods during the summer for that city. The 
flooding in Queen Anne's County destroyed railroad tracks. I have a 
photograph. This is, by the way, railroad tracks. They have been 
knocked out by the hurricane. As you can see, this required emergency 
attention.
  Multiple roads were closed and numerous homes were flooded in the 
town of Millington after the Chester River flooded over its banks. In 
Millington, the wastewater treatment plant was disabled, also affecting 
the residents in Kent County. The storm in Talbot County caused roads 
and pipeline damage.
  Let me show you this photograph, if I might, because I think it 
points out the problem. When that amount of water goes through the 
storm pipes, it can cause significant damage because these pipes were 
not able to handle the amount of water that was brought down by the 
hurricane and tropical storm. As a result, the pipes burst, causing the 
road which the pipe was under to give way, bringing about a road 
closure. That was terribly inconvenient, of course, to the people of 
that area, the businesses, et cetera. I am showing an example in Talbot 
County, MD, on the Eastern Shore. We could show numerous other examples 
of the failure of stormwater management pipes as well as roads that had 
to be closed for public safety. In Caroline County, the towns of 
Federalsburg and Greensboro experienced major flooding of the Choptank 
River, including the malfunctioning of a wastewater treatment plant. In 
Cecil and Harford Counties, Irene led to the opening of a significant 
number of floodgates at the Conowingo Dam, due to rising water levels 
feeding in from the Susquehanna River. This was the first time the 
engineers took such measures since Tropical Storm Isabel hit Maryland 
in 2003. Opening the floodgates led to flooding and property damage in 
many areas, and mandatory evacuation orders were issued for Port 
Deposit and Havre de Grace, in Maryland.
  People had to leave their homes. The streets were underwater. When 
the water receded, there was muck and damage to the towns.
  In southern Maryland, damage from metal on a roof that was blown into 
a transformer forced the shutdown of a reactor at Calvert Cliffs 
Nuclear Power Plant. In Calvert County, many of the substations were 
damaged and rendered inoperable during Irene, resulting in widespread 
power outages for many customers and that forced businesses to close 
for several days. You heard about power outages. We had whole counties 
where everyone was out of power--everyone. In most of our counties the 
majority of people lost their power, not for a couple hours, for many 
days, causing major disruptions to our businesses, to our families, to 
schools that could not open and, therefore, parents who could not go to 
work because they had to deal with the unexpected news that the schools 
would be closed because there was no power in the schools themselves.
  In the Washington metro region, Irene and the additional storms 
caused severe power outages and flooding in Montgomery and Prince 
George's Counties. In Prince George's County, the loss of power caused 
thousands of basements to flood. As you know, without power you cannot 
use your sump pumps. Without that, there is significant damage.
  Frankly, because the water came in from the low level rather than 
from the roof, these property owners are now being challenged as to 
whether their insurance will cover this damage. That raises the 
importance, I might say, of the Federal protections that are available 
when a disaster is declared an emergency by the President because of 
the altercations over what insurance does not cover. All the more 
reason why the Federal Government must be there in its traditional role 
to help communities when a storm or emergency occurs.
  Hurricane Irene and subsequent storms required governments to incur 
additional expenses due to overtime needed for first responders who 
save lives and property after the storm. I must tell you, I saw those 
first responders. I saw them out there working 24-hour shifts in some 
cases. They didn't get home to their families because they were there 
to help us maintain order and help reduce the loss of life and the loss 
of property. I thank President Obama for making a timely major disaster 
declaration for the State of Maryland in advance of the hurricane. 
Maryland is now eligible for Federal disaster recovery dollars through 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The State budget has already 
been very much impacted. We all understand our States do not have the 
flexibility of our country. It is during emergencies that our State and 
local leaders look to Washington, look to their Federal Government to 
be there as a partner to deal with this issue that States cannot deal 
with.
  Congress has always acted in a bipartisan manner to help Americans 
and their communities recover from natural disasters. Congress has 
never insisted that disaster fund being offset.
  Let me explain this issue because it may be confusing to the people 
who are watching. Yes, the Federal Emergency

[[Page S5597]]

Management Agency has a budget. FEMA has a budget. But you cannot 
predict the number and scope of natural disasters. No one had predicted 
this storm would be as widespread as it was. Hurricane Irene affected 
the entire east coast of the United States. FEMA did not have in its 
budget that type of a scenario, along with the tornadoes we had, along 
with what has happened in the Midwest. During this period, we have seen 
48 of our States declared eligible for FEMA assistance. This affects 
our entire country. Now the people on the east coast of the United 
States are looking to the Federal Government to be there. We have 
always done this, as I said, in a bipartisan manner, without the 
requirement that if additional moneys are needed, those moneys will be 
appropriated by Congress. We will not ask other agencies to have to 
contribute toward that because that was not anticipated when we did the 
budget. I might point out that we had a very contentious fight over the 
Budget Control Act. That is the bill we passed that allowed us to 
increase our debt ceiling and set our budget allocations for fiscal 
year 2012, the year that will start on October 1.

  As you know, there was an agreement in that Budget Control Act that 
permits the modification of the fiscal year 2012 discretionary cap to 
be adjusted to accommodate additional disaster relief funding without 
an offset. That is what we did. We came together as one entity 
recognizing we cannot predict the next hurricane, storm, earthquake, 
flood, or tornado. We just cannot predict that. Therefore, Democrats 
and Republicans said adjust the cap. Meet whatever disaster is out 
there. Whether it was Katrina in Louisiana, whether it is a bridge 
falling down in Minnesota that the Presiding Officer had to deal with, 
whether it is tornadoes as we had in the Midwest, droughts and floods 
that occurred in our country, we will be there to help the people of 
America. We helped rebuild countries around the world. We want to make 
sure we help the communities.
  I was with my colleagues from Vermont, and they shared with us the 
number of bridges that had been wiped out, people who have been 
isolated as a result of Hurricane Irene and then Tropical Storm Lee. We 
have a responsibility, and we recognize that in the budget agreement, 
that we adjust the caps without setoffs so the Federal Government can 
be there as a true partner in dealing with these issues. We were there 
for preparation. It is now time to help restore the communities. In 
some cases it will take months before we are back to normal. We know 
that, the people know that, but they have a right to expect that the 
Federal Government will be there to help.
  I commend Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee; Senator Inouye and the 
members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. They recognize that. 
They have given us a budget that will accommodate the extra needs so 
FEMA will have the resources it wants.
  I thank President Obama. His budget request to us reflects the 
resources we need so we have the recommendation from our Appropriations 
Committee. We have the leadership from the White House. Now it is time 
for us to act. We have the vehicle on the floor of the Senate. It is 
time for us to give the resources to the Federal agencies so they can 
be there in all parts of this country--including helping the people of 
Maryland cope with the disaster of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm 
Lee and the other natural disasters that have happened in other parts 
of the country by--taking up this issue now, passing it at this moment 
so the funds are there and the resources are there.
  We can live up to the historical mission of the United States to 
always be there to help any part of our Nation affected by a natural 
disaster. I hope we will be able to bring up this issue quickly. As the 
vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee indicated, it should not be 
delayed because of offset issues. We should get the needed funds and 
resources to the agency, working with our State and local governments, 
working for our local communities so we can try to restore and rebuild 
those areas that have been devastated by these natural disasters. I 
would urge us to do that as quickly as possible.
  Mr. President, I would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tribute to Tim O'keefe

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to bid a fond farewell to 
a man who has been a fixture in the Senate for 33 years. Mr. Tim 
O'Keefe of the Senate Disbursing Office is retiring today after more 
than three decades of service to this body and his country. Known to 
many as a loyal friend and well liked by nearly everyone he has met in 
these halls--including most of my colleagues and thousands of Senate 
staffers--he will be greatly missed.
  Tim began his career with the disbursing office, and in the Senate, 
in 1978. Every Senate employee becomes familiar with that office early 
in their tenure because that is the office in charge of the Senate 
payroll as well as everything relating to an employee's compensation, 
payroll deductions, retirement, life and health insurance, and other 
benefits. The disbursing office used to be located in the Capitol when 
Tim started. In fact, it was located in S-233, which is now part of the 
Republican leader's office. During Tim's early years on the job, 
staffers and Senators alike would line up in the hallways on payday to 
receive their paychecks. Maybe that is how Tim became legendary for 
never forgetting a face or a name for so many members of this very 
large Senate family, and always having a kind word for every one of 
them.
  The disbursing office moved in 1980 when my predecessor, Howard 
Baker, expanded the Republican leader's suite of offices. That is how 
Tim and his coworkers ended up in their now familiar location on the 
first floor of the Hart Building. Tim has kidded me about that a few 
times over the years. So on behalf of the Republican leader's office, 
let me take this opportunity to apologize to him for being booted from 
his perch.
  Tim is a native Washingtonian. He attended St. John's College High 
School and the University of South Carolina, which has a heck of a good 
football team this year. Just as Tim is loyal to the Senate, he is a 
loyal alumnus of both those institutions. He goes to Columbia, SC, 
every year to see South Carolina play football. Tim is also a great fan 
of the Washington Redskins who, amazingly enough, are off to a good 
start this year. He has season tickets, and has been attending their 
games since his boyhood. He loves to talk football, college or pro, 
with folks in the office, but be careful if you are a Cowboys fan.
  Tim's father George O'Keefe was a distinguished veteran who fought in 
World War II. His mother Gisela O'Keefe worked for the District of 
Columbia school system at Alice Deal Middle School. I know they would 
both be proud to see how well liked and well respected their son has 
become. Tim also has a brother, Dennis, who lives in South Carolina, 
and Tim lives in Alexandria with his teenaged son Connor.
  When the disbursing office held a retirement party for Tim a few 
weeks ago, he got quite the sendoff. It was the day of the historic 
earthquake, felt all along eastern North America from Quebec City to 
Atlanta and centered about 90 miles away in central Virginia. As Tim 
was opening his presents, the ground began to shake and the Capitol 
complex was soon evacuated. It is almost as if Washington, DC, itself 
was protesting that it did not want Tim to go.
  Indeed, it will be hard for many to imagine the Senate with Tim gone. 
He has the longest tenure of anyone in the disbursing office today, and 
thousands of Senate staffers know him as the man who led them in the 
Federal oath of office they take on their first day on the job--the 
same oath the Vice President of the United States administers to 
Senators at the beginning of their 6-year terms.
  In his retirement, Tim will have time to pursue his many interests, 
including his love of horse racing. He is particularly a fan of 
Lexington, Kentucky's Keeneland racetrack. And I would be

[[Page S5598]]

remiss if I didn't mention that today, the day of his retirement, is 
also Tim's birthday.
  I know many on Capitol Hill, after hearing about his retirement, have 
taken a moment to say thank you and goodbye to Mr. Tim O'Keefe. I 
wanted to make sure I was one of them. He will be missed here in the 
Senate, and we are very grateful for his 33 years of service.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Poverty in America

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, yesterday the Census Bureau released 
information about poverty, income, and health insurance in our country, 
and the news was, in short, devastating. The number of people in 
poverty is at an all-time high. Income gains over the last decade have 
been totally wiped out. Americans are struggling more than ever before.
  I am appalled by these facts and I know my colleagues are too. Today 
I wish to talk about these numbers, but I wish to talk about what we 
can do about them and about where our country's priorities must be and 
how we have to focus on rebuilding the middle class in light of the new 
census numbers.
  Yesterday we learned that 46.2 million people in America were poor 
last year. That is more than 15 percent of Americans. Let me remind my 
colleagues what this means. The poverty line for a family of four with 
two adults and two children is $22,000--just slightly over $22,000 a 
year. Can anyone here in this body--and we all know what we make; every 
Senator, every Congressman, except leadership who get paid a little bit 
more, makes $174,000 a year. If we think to ourselves: Could we and our 
spouses and two children live on $22,000 a year, $425 a week? But, 
beyond that, we also learned that deep poverty; that is, families with 
incomes less than half the poverty line, is also at the highest rate on 
record. More than 20 million Americans lived in deep poverty last year. 
That is just over $11,000 a year for a family of four. That is almost 
mind-boggling. How do people live like that?
  Our children are suffering incredibly high levels of poverty. The 
Census Bureau pointed out that 22 percent--1 out of every 5 kids in 
America--were poor last year. When compared to other industrialized 
nations--the OECD countries--the United States has one of the highest 
rates of child poverty in the world. That is inexcusable. It is a 
national crisis. It is something we should be discussing here on the 
Senate floor daily.
  In addition to our children, other vulnerable populations are 
suffering as well. People with disabilities continue to face higher 
poverty than people without disabilities. About 28 percent--almost 1 
out of 3 individuals with disabilities in America--are poor, compared 
with 12.5 percent of those without disabilities. That is twice the 
amount.
  Minorities also face devastating levels of poverty. More than a 
quarter of Blacks and Hispanics--more than 25 percent or 1 in 4--are in 
poverty in America. Again, keep in mind, for a family of four, that is 
just $22,000 a year. So 25 percent of Blacks and Hispanics are in 
poverty, 10 percent of Whites, 13 percent of Asians. These disparities 
are deeply troubling. More than 10 million Black and Hispanic children 
woke up this morning in a household struggling with poverty.
  Again, we have to remember, while I talk about these as numbers, 
there is a real story, there is a real family, a real individual, a 
real child behind every one of them.
  There are 46 million stories about families sitting around their 
kitchen table--if they are even lucky enough to have one--struggling to 
figure out how to make ends meet, stories of people choosing between 
whether to pay the rent or pay the utility bills, choosing whether to 
pay for diapers or medication for their kids, choosing whether to put 
food on the table or gasoline in the car--so they might get to a 
minimum wage, part-time job someplace. This should not be happening in 
America.
  We have heard a lot of talk and I have heard Senators and Members of 
the House in speeches recently talking about how we cannot afford this 
and we cannot afford that because, let's face it, we are broke, we are 
deeply in debt in this country and we are broke. I beg to differ. The 
United States of America is today the richest country in the world--the 
richest country in the history of the world.
  If we are so rich, why are we so broke? We are not poor. We are the 
richest country in the world. So what this census report yesterday 
points out is this is a wake-up call that we are failing. We are 
failing our most vulnerable citizens. We are failing to provide a 
ladder of opportunity for people to become part of the middle class. We 
are destroying futures, destroying hope among our children.
  First and foremost, I think this report yesterday graphically 
illustrates how dangerous it would be if we as lawmakers give in to the 
current atmosphere of budget hysteria--budget hysteria--fear, and 
fatalism that is now going on on Capitol Hill. By giving in to it, we 
eviscerate the essential economic security programs just because 
somehow we want to score political points.
  Well, people all know that most people in poverty have a higher rate 
of not voting than wealthier people. We know that. So I guess, if you 
want to get votes, you appeal to people who have money. If you want to 
get elected, you appeal to people who have money because they are the 
ones who give you money to get elected by, like big corporations. So 
the poor are kind of forgotten about. So if we give in to this budget 
hysteria, the first people who are usually hurt are the most vulnerable 
of our citizens.
  The Census Bureau's numbers show, again, without question how 
effective and important these safety net programs are to keeping 
millions of people out of poverty. Social Security alone--according to 
the census numbers, kept 20 million people above the poverty line. 
Unemployment insurance kept 3.2 million more people out of poverty.
  We have always known these are crucial programs, but now we know just 
how important they are. And other programs, if they were counted by the 
official poverty measure, which they are not, would have lifted 
millions more people out of poverty. For example, the SNAP program--
food stamps--would have lifted 3.9 million people above poverty. The 
earned-income tax credit would have lifted 5.4 million people. Without 
these crucial safety net programs, the poverty situation would be much 
worse. Yet, mark my words, with this supercommittee that is meeting or 
whether we go into some kind of a sequestration or whatever that means 
around here, are we going to cut back on the food stamp program, are we 
going to cut back on unemployment insurance, maybe cut back on Social 
Security, as some would want to do, and Social Security benefits? That 
just means more people will fall below the poverty line.
  I think the second lesson we can learn from this report is about the 
crippling effect falling paychecks and rising inequality are having on 
our economy. Income went down again last year. Real median household 
income was $49,500. That is down 2.3 percent from the year before and 
down 6.4 percent since the start of the recession. This is not just the 
effect of the recession; these are long-term economic trends that have 
caused a dramatic increase in the income inequality in this country, 
and it has been going on for at least the last three decades, little 
bit by little bit by little bit, to the point now where we have a huge 
disparity in income equality in this country.
  Again, paychecks for American workers are not falling because they 
are not working as hard or producing less. According to testimony from 
former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich to the HELP Committee, the 
typical American family is working more than 500 hours longer per year 
now than they were in 1979. Got that. The typical American family is 
working 500 hours longer per year than they were in 1979. In addition 
to working longer, their productivity, as measured by the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, has continued to rise.

[[Page S5599]]

  So what has happened? People are working longer. There is more 
production, more units per person per hour worked, and yet wages have 
fallen. Why is that? You would think wages and benefits would have gone 
up with longer hours and more productivity. Well, that is not what 
happened. It is not that companies cannot afford to pay their workers 
more. Profit margins of Standard & Poor's 500 companies are at their 
highest levels since the late 1960s. So what has happened during the 
last three decades, since 1979, is that the executives have shifted 
revenues from workers' paychecks to the corporate bottom lines and 
their own pockets--more to profit, more to capital, less to labor.
  We cannot allow these trends to continue. Economists across the 
political spectrum agree that a major cause of our current economic 
stagnation is a chronic lack of demand. For nearly three decades, 
workers' incomes have been stagnant. Working families lack the 
purchasing power to drive America's consumer economy. Without adequate 
demand, businesses are reluctant to invest and hire. Simply put, until 
we raise the numbers on people's paychecks and the number of people 
working and making a paycheck, the economy will never recover.
  The final lesson I think we can learn from yesterday's census report 
is about health care. There is a small silver lining here. While the 
recession is obviously continuing to impact health care coverage, there 
are some signs that the early stages of implementation of the 
affordable care act, that is, the health care reform bill, are making a 
difference. While the census data shows that the number of uninsured 
increased from 16.1 percent to 16.3 percent of the population--the 
Census Bureau deemed this ``not statistically different''--the 
affordable care act's requirement that health plans provide dependent 
coverage to young adults to stay on their parents' policy until age 26 
is making a difference.
  The data from the Census Bureau shows that the 18-to-24 age group was 
the only group ``to experience a significant increase in the percentage 
with health insurance over the past year,'' up to 72.8 percent from 
70.7 percent in 2009. So, again, there is a small silver lining there 
in terms of health care coverage for our younger population. So it is a 
modest step forward for young Americans.
  But the overall picture the census report reveals is a nation--the 
United States of America--on the brink of a crisis. It should be a call 
to action. I think the President's jobs bill is a good start. We have 
to create more jobs, not just any job but good-quality jobs that pay 
decent wages and benefits, a job to lift a family out of poverty and 
not to keep a family in it.
  Again, I have been paying attention a little bit to some of the 
debates that have been going on in the other party.
  I was looking at the figures from the State of Texas that more jobs 
have been created in Texas than any other part of the country. Well, 
when you look closely, Texas had by far the largest number of minimum 
wage jobs than any other state, and the number of minimum wage workers 
more than doubled between 2007 and 2010. That is our future--minimum 
wage jobs at $7.25 an hour? That is barely $15,000 a year, under the 
poverty line for a family of four. Is that something to brag about, 
that we are creating more minimum wage jobs that will just keep 
families in poverty? As I said, we need jobs to lift families out of 
poverty, not keep them down, under the poverty level.
  Lastly, I have said so many times here on the floor that we will not 
be able to tackle the problem of poverty in this country until we have 
a strong middle class and a clear path for people to become middle-
class citizens. That means we should invest more in education, more in 
innovation, more in infrastructure-building in this country. It means 
restoring a level playing field with fair taxation--fair taxation. To 
repeat something the President said the other night--why should Warren 
Buffett pay less of a percentage of his income than his secretary? You 
wonder why people get cynical about government. Of course they are 
cynical. They have every reason to be cynical when we pass these laws 
around here and we tax capital at a lower rate than we tax labor. Why 
should someone who is laboring and working be taxed at a higher rate 
than a wealthy person who maybe invested a lot of money, and they are 
putting it all into capital gains, and they are paying a lower rate of 
taxes than someone who is out there working for a living? Why is that 
fair?
  Well, we also need vibrant unions, vibrant unions that can bargain 
collectively for their people for wages, hours, conditions of 
employment. We need a strong ladder of opportunity to give every 
American access to the middle class.
  So, again, yesterday's poverty numbers told a bleak story about 46 
million Americans who cannot make ends meet. I hope that next year at 
this time, when the new census numbers come out, we can begin to tell a 
different story about how we acted boldly, with imagination and vision, 
to help these people turn their lives around and build a better future. 
In a nation as strong and as vibrant and, yes, as rich--as rich--as the 
United States of America, no one who works hard for a living should 
have to live in poverty, and we should not rest until that vision 
becomes a reality.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection, 
it is so ordered.


                         Spirit of Cooperation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, there has been a promising new tone in 
Congress since our return from the summer recess. It has taken some by 
surprise. But even more striking than the new tone is that it has 
brought with it a few modest signs of a new spirit of cooperation.
  The House this week sent us the highway extension and an aviation 
extension that are clean. During August, there were clamors from some 
corners in the other party to mount a fight over the gas tax or insist 
on harmful cuts to road and bridge repair, even if these demands risked 
a shutdown of road construction projects. As recently as last Friday, 
Republicans were planning to insist on a 5-percent cut to the FAA 
budget--a move that could well have threatened another shutdown of that 
agency like we saw in August. But both fears, fortunately, have 
receded. Barring a setback in the Senate, we should be able to extend 
both the FAA and highway measures on time and without controversy.
  This is a very positive sign. There was a sour taste left in 
everyone's mouth at the end of the debt ceiling debate, and that is 
causing a change in behavior. It is actually bringing us together. That 
process was made unnecessarily difficult because of the extreme tactics 
of a bloc within the House. The political process broke down and the 
public noticed.
  In the aftermath of that debate, it seems everybody finally realizes 
there is a premium on reasonableness. The public does not want to see 
more of the ``my way or the highway'' approach that has been exhibited 
by some in the House. That is why there was head scratching earlier 
this week to hear a new rumor in the Capitol that the House Republican 
leadership might consider seeking to reopen the debt ceiling fight, 
ignoring the agreed-upon spending level for the 2012 fiscal year. As 
you know, the deal included a top-line budget number of $1.043 trillion 
for the fiscal year that begins October 1. This was a significant cut, 
an actual cut from the fiscal 2011 level of $7 billion. This agreement 
was ratified by all of those who voted for the final debt ceiling 
agreement. It was hailed as one of the better aspects of the overall 
debt ceiling deal because it would mean a lesser likelihood of another 
budget fight on September 30.
  However, since this number was agreed to, some extreme Republicans 
have started looking to cause trouble. They have tried to see the $7 
billion in cuts represented by the $1.043 trillion figure as a floor, 
not a ceiling. This would be a violation not just of the spirit of the 
debt limit deal but the letter of it.
  The public will not stand for another budget fight. Republicans 
should understand that more brinkmanship on

[[Page S5600]]

the budget at the end of September is not in either side's interest. 
Some, thankfully, in the House leadership seem to realize this. 
Majority Leader Cantor, in a memo to the House Republican caucus sent 
in August, warned against picking another budget fight on the CR. 
Leader Cantor wrote:

       While all of us would like to have seen a lower 
     discretionary appropriation ceiling for the upcoming fiscal 
     year, the debt limit agreement set a level of spending that 
     is a real cut from the current year. I believe it is in our 
     interest to enact into law full-year appropriation bills at 
     this new lower level.

  Leader Cantor affirmed these remarks earlier this week:

       I say to my Republican colleagues, a deal is a deal. It's 
     hard to imagine you would go back on the debt limit 
     agreement, but if you are even considering it, please stop.

  We already will likely need to take time next week resolving what 
level of FEMA funding we should appropriate for fiscal year 2012. 
Earlier indications are that some House Republicans may want to 
shortchange the level of funding FEMA says it needs for next year. I 
can't imagine why anyone would want to play games with disaster relief. 
But if they want to debate that, they should not also be tying it to 
another budget fight that we have already resolved and that nearly 
caused a default for the first time in American history. We should not 
go back over those pages. We have had enough debates on the docket 
without reopening the ones we have already done.
  The public is tired of these fights, and the public understands who 
keeps instigating them. To the House Republicans I say: Don't go back 
on your word on the CR. Leader Cantor was right when he said in August 
you should abide by the level agreed to over the summer. Stick with 
that decision and let's move on to other issues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                      International Space Station

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am very happy to announce to 
the Senate that today NASA announced its new, big rocket design, with 
the President stepping forth to indicate that he will request funding 
for the design and building of this rocket.
  I want to take the opportunity to share with the Senate what this 
rocket is going to be. To set the stage, you will recall that we have 
the International Space Station up in orbit now. There is a combination 
of six astronauts on board. It is an international crew. The space 
station itself--people don't realize how big it is. If you think about 
sitting in a football stadium on the 50-yard line, and looking from one 
end zone to the other, that is how big the space station is--120 yards 
long.
  The space shuttle has been the vehicle that we have used now for 30 
years, the last 10 of which have been used to build the International 
Space Station. The Russians have been taking up some components, but 
the major components, the heavy components are being taken up in the 
cargo bay of the space shuttle and assembled over the last decade into 
the station. We have six astronauts doing research in the zero gravity 
of orbit.
  The future rockets going to and from the space station--a space taxi, 
if you will--are a competition among commercial rocket companies, and 
we think that competition will bring down significantly the cost of 
those rockets to take cargo and crew, and at the end of this year one 
version of those rockets will in fact launch, rendezvous, and dock with 
the space station and deliver cargo.
  To make those human rated, with all of the redundancies and escape 
systems to save human life, it is going to take another few years. Of 
course, it is a disappointment for so many of us that the new rocket, 
ready to go to and from the space station, as the space shuttle used 
to, is not ready for humans, even though we are launching cargo. Thus, 
in the interim, we have to rely on the Russians with their spacecraft, 
which we have done before, because when the Space Shuttle Columbia was 
destroyed on reentry back in 2003, for well over 2 years we were down 
and not flying the space shuttle, until we could make sure that it was 
fixed. We relied on the Russian Soyuz to get to and from the space 
station.
  All right, that is going to low-Earth orbit. But NASA, with its human 
space program, has another mission. Now, with the nonmanned space 
program, we just launched to Jupiter, we just launched a mission to the 
Moon, next month we are going to launch a mission on Earth 
observations, and before Thanksgiving we are launching a Volkswagen-
size Recovery to Mars, with six wheels powered by a plutonium source so 
it doesn't have to go to sleep in the Martian night. This will rove all 
over.
  It has a pole that will stick up, with a laser, and it can zap rocks 
so we can analyze their chemical content. It has a big scooper that can 
also get us additional samples. It has two eyes that will pop up as it 
roams around so we can see in real time the surface of Mars.
  So we have a vigorous space program. But we still have to do what 
NASA is supposed to do; that is, leave the orbit of the Earth and 
venture out into the heavens with humans. That is what was announced 
today--announced by Senator Hutchison and myself, with NASA 
Administrator General Charlie Bolden making the formal announcement. 
The President has signed off on the specifics.
  I am going to explain this rocket. But before I do, let me say there 
have been a lot of critics saying: Oh, it will cost too much. Remember, 
last year we passed the NASA bill unanimously in the Senate and passed 
it in the House with an overwhelming three-quarters vote. That set the 
parameters on the funding for this new rocket, and all of NASA's 
figures have come in underneath those levels that we set in the NASA 
authorization bill. Those are the numbers the Office of Management and 
Budget and the White House have scrubbed to make sure they are 
realistic, and that is what has been announced today.

  Here it is. This is the rocket. Just to give an idea of the scale of 
this monster, the space shuttle in the stack, with the external tank 
and the two solids on either side, the tallest point of that stack is 
the top of the external tank. From here that would come up to right 
there. That gives an idea of how much larger this rocket is. This 
rocket will launch more payload than any rocket in America's space 
program and probably the Russian/Soviet space program, certainly, now. 
Back in the old Soviet days I don't think the Soviets had one that was 
anywhere near this one.
  What this rocket has is a core, and this is a core with liquid 
oxygen, liquid hydrogen fuel tank. It is taking the space shuttle 
engines--so we can keep the cost down, and a lot of this has already 
been developed--and putting five in the tail of this first stage. So 
first stage, liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen. But it is boosted on 
either side by those solid rocket boosters--in this case a new one. 
Under the space shuttle it was four segments, but this one has five 
segments. So it is elongated and gives more thrust. These, on future 
versions, will be competed as to whether it is going to be solid 
rockets--and, by the way, the consistency of this pencil eraser is what 
the solid rocket material looks like--or whether those in the 
competition will be liquid boosters.
  All right, that is the core. That comes up all the way to here. Then 
there is the second stage. We have second-stage engines we have been 
using in the past called the J-2. They are now updated with a new, more 
powerful version called the J-2X. So we have a lot of history on these 
engines. That is what is going to be the second stage, which then takes 
the housing for a lot of the electronics, and then the capsule.
  The tower at the top is an escape tower. We could actually have an 
explosion right here on the pad, and the crew could survive because 
they would eject in the full capsule, being thrust away from the 
explosion, and then the parachutes would deploy and the crew saved; 
likewise, we could save the crew on this rocket all the way to orbit. 
So if there was a problem, we could still save the human life of the 
four to seven astronauts who are going to be in this crew capsule. We 
could save their lives, and that was one of the mandates after we lost 
Columbia in the reentry over Texas. The investigation board said: Build 
a safer rocket, and certainly one that is more economical.
  This is now on a schedule for its first test--this version. This is 
the smaller version. This thing can evolve. This is

[[Page S5601]]

about 70 to 77 tons. This thing can evolve to 150 tons, and then we are 
talking about a monster. On this version they will test it on a 
schedule for 2017. They will have several other tests, and they are on 
a schedule to put a crew into this rocket in 2021. They are then 
scheduled to rendezvous, or land, on an asteroid--this will be the 
first time that has ever been done--as a way of preparing us to then go 
to Mars.
  So that is what NASA has announced today. I want to give great 
credit--great, great credit--to Senator Hutchison. She has been the 
ranking member and, alternately, chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Science and Space and is now the ranking member of the full Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. She has been a princess in 
helping guide, first of all, the NASA authorization bill and the 
funding. Tomorrow, she and Senator Mikulski--the chair of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of the 
Committee on Appropriations--will be taking up NASA's budget as they 
get ready to come to the floor.
  This rocket will now allow us to get out of low-Earth orbit, assemble 
components--heavy components--that ultimately will take us out into the 
heavens exploring in ways we never have even started to design. 
Remember, 40 years ago we went to the Moon. That was quite an 
accomplishment. But the Moon is about 250,000 miles from Earth. With 
rockets like these, we are going to go far out into the heavens to 
explore the origins of the universe, to explore that which we have 
never even dreamed of, as we fulfill our destiny as a people who are 
explorers and adventurers by nature.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mrs. HAGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in imploring 
Congress to provide needed assistance to our families, our communities, 
and our businesses suffering from the rash of natural disasters that 
have hit our country hard this year.
  While many of us who represent States on the east coast planned to 
spend our final week of our August work period traveling our State, 
touring factories, stopping by schools, and visiting military bases, 
Mother Nature had other plans.
  We still traveled to our States, but we saw a very different scene: 
whole streets and towns flooded, homes and businesses washed away from 
their foundations, destroyed crop fields, and constituents worried 
about the loss of their homes and mourning their loved ones.
  Over 2 weeks ago, Hurricane Irene barreled down our eastern seaboard, 
and early estimates suggest it could be one of the top 10 costliest 
disasters in U.S. history. I am here to tell the story of North 
Carolina.
  In the early morning of August 27, Irene first touched down over 
eastern North Carolina's Outer Banks. Even before it made landfall, the 
storm brought on several tornadoes along the coast that swept away 
entire homes.
  This is a photo of what is left of three homes hit by tornadoes in 
Tyrrell County. I was there, and it was truly devastating. One elderly 
man who had one of these homes was there the next day with a rake, 
forlorn look in his eyes, and said: The only thing I own now are the 
clothes on my back.
  By the time Irene finally moved beyond the State of North Carolina, 
six North Carolinians had been killed, storm surges 6 to 9 feet high 
had flooded many towns, more than 500,000 were without power, and 
countless homes, businesses, and schools had been destroyed or severely 
damaged.
  Fortunately, our State had prepared diligently for days leading up to 
the storm, boarding up houses and businesses and declaring mandatory 
evacuations for tourists and residents in our most at-risk towns.
  A lot of pundits woke after Irene hit and started saying: Hey, it 
wasn't that bad. I wish to invite those individuals to come to eastern 
North Carolina and see what I saw in the wake of Hurricane Irene.
  I saw small business owners in downtown Manteo emptying stores they 
have run for decades, tossing their waterlogged inventory, moving their 
furniture to the curb, moving out carpet totally destroyed, and these 
business owners wondering if it was even worth reopening their stores.
  There was a bookstore, and a resident in the community came up to me 
and he said: Senator Hagan, I have raised my children by sitting on 
this man's knees having books read to him day in and day out. We need 
this bookstore back in Manteo.
  I wish to be sure it gets there.
  I also saw crops that had been beaten by wind and rain for 15 hours, 
and it looked like they had gone through the spin cycle of a washing 
machine. I saw flooding in the fields so severe that Agricultural 
Secretary and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said it was the worst 
agricultural flooding he recalled seeing.
  I saw families clearing and burning debris, pumping floodwater, 
tossing aside their soaked possessions that were beyond saving.
  I also stood along Highway 12, eerily quiet, a highway that is 
usually busy with traffic, totally still at the point where Irene had 
left a gaping hole, blocking any vehicle travel to and from Hatteras 
Island and the towns of Rodanthe, Waves, Salvo, Avon, Buxton, Frisco, 
and Hatteras. We can clearly see the breach of the highway here. It 
actually breached in three separate points along Highway 12. The only 
way to get to the island now is by ferry; and, according to local 
reports, the line for that ferry was 15 miles long this weekend.
  That is the picture in North Carolina. It is not the only picture. 
While there were scenes of destruction and loss, I also saw tremendous 
acts of determination and kindness. If winds and rains may have swept 
away our possessions, they also stirred up the best parts of North 
Carolina spirit. Our intrinsic devotion to community and to assisting 
those in need produced countless heroes across our State the past 2 
weeks.
  Everywhere I went, I saw emergency workers, volunteer organizations, 
and members of the community reaching out to their neighbors in need. 
In Craven and Tyrrell Counties, the American Red Cross and the North 
Carolina Baptist Men and Women provided hot meals. The North Carolina 
Baptist Men and Women were there, distributing 5,000 meals one 
afternoon when I was with them and also helping shelter and debris 
removal for those affected by the hurricane.
  The North Carolina National Guard activated 400 members--including a 
member of my own staff who serves in the Guard--to provide emergency 
water, food, and supplies to some of the hardest hit areas. Emergency 
workers throughout the State continue to help families, businesses, and 
entire communities recover and rebuild.
  While the people of the great State of North Carolina are committed 
to getting themselves and their neighbors back on their own feet, we 
have to do the same in Congress. For the North Carolina families, 
farmers, fishermen, educators, seniors, and small businesses struggling 
to recover, government assistance cannot come fast enough. It must not 
leave too soon.
  Here is my bottom line: Congress must fully fund Irene recovery 
efforts now. But we must also fund the emergency funding needs in 
tornado-devastated Joplin, MO, and Alabama, and the flooded communities 
of the Midwest, also, and in the wildfire disaster currently in Texas.
  Without a doubt, this year, our country has been ravaged by an 
unprecedented series of natural disasters. Since January 1, the 
President has issued disaster declarations in 48 States, and the 
hurricane season is far from over.
  We are aware of this trend all too well in North Carolina. Just about 
4 months before Irene hit, 28 tornadoes touched down across central and 
southern North Carolina, the most severe weather to hit our State since 
1984. More than 20 North Carolinians were killed, 6,200 homes damaged, 
and about 440 homes were completely destroyed;

[[Page S5602]]

21 businesses, including the largest employer in the town of Sanford, 
were demolished, with another 92 significantly damaged, leaving at 
least 2,000 North Carolinians in that one area out of work. Shaw 
University, located in downtown Raleigh, was forced to close for the 
remainder of the semester due to the immense damage to its campus.
  We will never be able to predict the whims of Mother Nature, but we 
are able to prepare and prepare we must. Right now, FEMA's Disaster 
Relief Fund is running dangerously low. Even before Hurricane Irene 
arrived we were using $400 million a month on disaster relief efforts. 
Today the fund is down to $377 million, not enough for a week of 
spending before Hurricane Irene hit, and we still have 3 weeks to go in 
this fiscal year.

  If we do not act now to fix this shortfall, millions of Americans 
will be left behind. Already, FEMA is shifting funds away from vitally 
needed reconstruction projects in previously hard-hit areas to what 
they call ``immediate needs'' assistance. I do not believe any one of 
us wants to be in the position of telling one of our constituents--one 
of our small business owners, one of our school principals--that we 
can't help because they are not considered an ``immediate need.'' 
American victims of natural disasters should not be left at the mercy 
of a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul system. That is not who we are as Americans.
  We have a choice right now. In my mind and in the minds of all North 
Carolinians affected by the storms of Irene and the tornadoes that took 
place in April, the choice is clear: Congress must make these FEMA 
supplemental funds available.
  The Budget Control Act that we passed in early August established 
strict spending caps to get our fiscal house in order while also 
allowing for a limited amount of funds to be made available in case 
disaster struck. Disaster struck, and now is the time to make those 
funds available. Meeting these needs is not just a necessity for the 
people of my State and many others, but it is also wholly consistent 
with the fiscal discipline that we agreed on and voted on in August.
  But FEMA funding is not enough. Our farmers in North Carolina and 
across the eastern coast were devastated by Irene, and they are in 
desperate need of assistance. North Carolina is an agricultural State. 
Agriculture generates about $78 billion a year in economic activity, 
and it employs close to one-fifth of the workers in North Carolina. Our 
agricultural industry, particularly our cotton and tobacco farmers, are 
in trouble.
  At the end of the day, when all of the damage assessments are 
completed, our farmers could be out more than $400 million from 
Hurricane Irene, and these crops were just getting ready to be 
harvested. Our farmers in our State absolutely cannot afford a blow 
like this one. We in Congress need to work together so assistance from 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture can be expedited and delivered in a 
timelier manner. We need to act soon.
  I want to end with a story from my State that I believe is 
particularly relevant at this time when communities across the country 
are in the process of recovery. Back in April, one of the most 
recognizable scenes from the post-tornado coverage was of a Lowe's 
store in Sanford, NC. Unlike with Irene, there were few warnings of the 
tornado's arrival. But when Michael Hollowell, the store manager, saw 
the storm approaching his store--and it was very fast--he calmly moved 
every customer to the back corner where he knew--because he had been 
trained--they would be the safest. I saw that Lowe's the very next day.
  This is what that store looked like. It was completely demolished. 
But every single person in the store when the storm hit was alive. Mike 
Hollowell is a hero, not just to those people in the Lowe's store but 
to people all over North Carolina. Last week, not even 5 months after 
this devastation, that same Lowe's reopened, and it reopened with 2,000 
more square feet than it had before. It just shows that North 
Carolinians and people across the country are committed to a recovery 
that will leave our communities better than ever.
  The people of this great country are stronger than any storm. They 
will rebuild and recover. But that process may take many months, it may 
take many years. As their representatives, we have a responsibility to 
provide a reliable, comprehensive program of relief for that duration. 
To do any less is a dereliction of duty.
  I call on all my colleagues to pass this FEMA supplemental bill as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Stimulus Bill

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in recent days the President has 
repeatedly told Congress to pass the stimulus package immediately. This 
began during his joint address to Congress last week when he said at 
one point:

       I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass 
     right away. You should pass this jobs plan right away. Pass 
     this jobs bill--pass this jobs bill.

  Immediately following the President's joint address to the Congress, 
Press Secretary Jay Carney declared:

       The President will submit a bill early next week, the 
     American Jobs Act, which will specify how he proposes paying 
     for the American Jobs Act.

  As ranking Republican on the Budget Committee and wrestling with 
these difficult issues--I know Senator Cardin is a member of the 
committee--we tried to figure out what this means and how much money 
the spending will be. But the bill that was transmitted to Congress 
Monday afternoon does not contain any fiscal tables, costs for any of 
his provisions, actually how those provisions will be paid for and when 
the pay-for will occur, or even an overall pricetag for the bill.
  How can the President call on Congress to ``pass this bill 
immediately'' when no one even knows how much it will cost or where the 
money is coming from?
  I sent a letter yesterday to the President's Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget, Jack Lew, asking that this information be 
provided to the Congress at once. But so far we have had no response. 
Part of the reason we need this information is that the total cost of 
the President's bill may be much higher than advertised. That has been 
the pattern around here. No one should be surprised. When the President 
said his plan would be ``paid for,'' he did not specify if he meant the 
total cost--to include increased interest resulting from the borrowed 
money to be spent immediately--or just the cost of the jobs provisions 
alone, actually how much goes out the door. Depending on whether the 
money is spent out and when it is paid back--assuming it is ever paid 
back--interest costs resulting from just this bill's borrowing could 
top $100 billion. In other words, the interest on the money over the 
10-year window, the 10-year budget we are talking about--if we spend 
$450 billion now, we pay interest on that money. It is borrowed money. 
People loan us the money and we pay interest. Interest rates alone 
now--CBO projects them to go up, our Congressional Budget Office. 
Certainly they will. They are extraordinarily low today. But, at any 
rate, we could easily see the interest on this money over 10 years 
reaching $100 billion.

  The problem with looking at it as a 10-year scenario is that the debt 
is probably not going to be paid off in 10 years. Most of the debts we 
run up will be part of our deficit. If we want to raise taxes to fund a 
new program, maybe we ought to raise taxes to pay off the debt we have 
instead of spending it on a new program. The debt we have distributes 
American wealth to people who hold our debt all over the world.
  In my letter to OMB, I request tables showing the year-by-year data 
for this bill's budgetary impact, including projected changes to the 
deficit for each of the next 10 years. In other words, how will it play 
out? If we spend $450 billion in 1, 2, or 3 years, how much does that 
run up the debt? When does the repayment begin? How will it be paid, 
and at what rate? If the President wants to advocate for a sharp, near-
term increase in the deficit in exchange for the possibility of some 
undefined economic future, with the possibility of a

[[Page S5603]]

stimulus, he ought to make that argument clearly to the American 
people.
  I believe the President also needs to be honest in admitting that the 
bill's short-term costs would wipe out--obliterate--the $7 billion in 
savings next year resulting from the debt limit deal. In other words, 
we went through this long, painful exercise that resulted in an 
agreement in the eleventh hour and the 59th minute to save $900 
billion, and then, hopefully, form a committee that would save another 
$1.1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, only a fraction of this $2.1 billion in 
savings, of the $13 trillion the Congressional Budget Office tells us 
will be added to the debt in the next 10 years. So it would save a 
little over $2 trillion over 10 years but, at the same time, we are 
running up over $10 trillion in debt. So it is not a big enough step. 
It is a step. There is progress. I certainly respect that, but it 
wasn't much.
  To show us how small it is, next year we are projected, under the 
agreement Congress ratified, to reduce spending by $7 billion. That is 
all. That is all it would be reduced from this year to next year in 
actual spending levels. So I ask my colleagues: Don't we need to be 
careful? After all the effort we took to achieve that much savings, 
shouldn't we think very carefully about a new stimulus plan that would 
spend $450 billion, obliterating that savings? I think we should. But, 
at any rate, we do need to know precisely how much it is going to cost 
and precisely how the money would be spent.
  Let's flash back to February. The Office of Management and Budget 
Director, Jack Lew, said this. This was when the President submitted 
his budget for the next 10 years. It was brought up here on the floor 
of the Senate. In fact, I brought it up. It was voted down 97 to 
nothing. But this is what Mr. Lew said about that budget:

       Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the 
     point where we can look the American people in the eye and 
     say we're not adding to the debt anymore; we're spending 
     money that we have each year, and then we can work on 
     bringing down the national debt.

  We all know there is a certain amount of political license people get 
to utilize in the political world, and exaggeration sometimes is 
forgiven. But let me tell my colleagues, this is the Office of 
Management and Budget talking about the President's budget that he had 
just submitted to Congress. He said:

       Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the 
     point where we can look the American people in the eye and 
     say we're not adding to the debt anymore; we're spending 
     money that we have each year, and then we can work on 
     bringing down our national debt.

  What is the truth? The Congressional Budget Office scored this 
budgetary plan and this is what they concluded: that over a 10-year 
period there would be huge deficits every single year. In about year 6 
or 7, the lowest deficit would occur--$750 billion would be the lowest 
annual deficit that would occur--and by the 10th year we would be back 
up to $1 trillion. President Bush's largest deficit he ever had was 
$450 billion and he was criticized for that. So we are going to have 
the lowest--and he says this is going to pay down the debt and wouldn't 
be adding more to the debt if we passed his budget, when his budget 
spent more, taxed more, and ran up more debt. I believe this is the 
most irresponsible budget ever submitted to the Congress of the United 
States, at a time of national crisis, when all experts are telling us 
the greatest threat to our national security is our debt.
  Forgive me if I want to see the fine print on this legislation, when 
an administration tells us that--and the President said very similar 
things; the President himself said very similar things--we would not be 
adding more to the debt.
  We in Congress raised the legal debt limit--I did not vote for that 
particular bill--but we have breached, I am afraid, our economic debt 
limit. America's $14.5 trillion gross debt is now 100 percent of our 
GDP, our economy. Experts tell us we have already crossed a dangerous 
threshold. Our debt is pulling down growth and putting a damper on job 
creation right now.
  We have to ask ourselves: Can we continue to borrow, running up even 
more debt in the hope that we can spend it today in a sugar-high type 
stimulus to create jobs in the short run? The Congressional Budget 
Office scored the first stimulus package 2 years ago that has come 
nowhere near achieving what was promised for it. They said, OK, if you 
spend $825 billion now, you will get some short-term economic benefit, 
but scored over a decade, we would have an economic decline. The net 
growth of the United States would be less over 10 years than if we 
didn't pass a stimulus package at all. When we get up to 100 percent of 
GDP, I submit it is even more dangerous to keep running up debt.
  This is a dilemma. We are in a fix. The economy is not growing the 
way we wish it to grow. CBO was projecting in January of this year that 
economic growth for the first 6 months would be about 2.9 percent. We 
were hoping that would be true. But what happened? The first quarter of 
this fiscal year it was .4 percent--not 2 percent, not 2.9 percent--and 
the second quarter was extremely low also. We have averaged about 1 
percent growth the first half of this year.
  We want to do something to help this economy grow. I submit we should 
do everything we can that would help our economy grow now that does not 
run up the debt. What are some of those things? Producing more energy 
at home, creating jobs here; pumping more energy supply which could 
bring down the cost of energy. We can bring down the cost of energy, 
create jobs, create tax revenue, and create growth that way. We should 
eliminate every regulation that is not beneficial to this economy, and 
there are a lot of them. Some regulations are good. Many of them add 
costs to the entire economy for little or no benefit. We need to have 
the kind of tax reform of a permanent nature that creates confidence in 
our economy--the kind of tax reform that advances economic growth 
rather than increasing taxes to give Washington more money.
  Those are my suggestions about how to deal with this. First and 
foremost, we are going to look at this proposal. We certainly are 
worried about the status of the economy today. We are deeply 
disappointed in the job numbers that continue to fall and, hopefully, 
we will find the key to changing that. But fundamentally the economy 
will come back and jobs will come back when growth occurs and growth 
will occur not in the public sector but in the private sector. We need 
to ask ourselves what it is we can do to create a better climate for 
growth and job creation. We need to be rigorous in analyzing the 
President's proposal, and to look at the details of it and how much it 
is going to cost and how we plan to pay it back. I think at a very 
minimum, we are entitled to that.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Alabama who has come to the floor. We see the world differently, but we 
both acknowledge we are at a moment where action is the only 
alternative. Doing nothing is unacceptable. When President Obama came 
to speak to us in a joint session of Congress last week, that is what 
he told us. He basically said, Let's roll up our sleeves, work 
together, both parties in Congress, for a change, and do something 
about this economy.
  There are 14 million Americans out of work. The report now from the 
Joint Economic Committee and others cites the highest level of poverty 
in our country in decades; the problems working families are having 
week to week, month to month, and year to year, falling behind, despite 
all of their hard work. Their wages aren't rising to keep up with the 
cost of living. Many are surviving paycheck to paycheck.
  A survey was taken recently across America asking working families 
the following question: Could you come up with $2,000 in 30 days if you 
had to, either from savings or borrowing it? Fifty-three percent of 
working families said yes and 47 percent said no. That is how close to 
the edge almost half of working families are living. A $2,000 medical 
bill at an emergency room is almost nothing these days--it is for a 
minor injury--and these families could not come up with it. That is 
what they are facing. That is why the President said let us focus on 
doing things that will help these families and equally, if not more 
importantly, help small businesses create jobs.

[[Page S5604]]

  There is no argument here about creating an army of government jobs. 
That is not even on the table. The President is not proposing that. 
Here is what he said: Let's give a tax cut, a payroll tax cut to 
working individuals so they have more take-home pay. I took a look at 
what it would mean in the State of Illinois. It would mean that for the 
average income, which is $53,000 a year, that family would get $1,400 
in tax cuts or $120 a month. I think it is worth something to working 
families to have that much more in their pockets to meet the needs of 
their families and perhaps make some critical purchases for their 
children, for their future, whatever it might be. That is a tax cut the 
President has proposed.

  He also proposed a tax cut for small businesses if they will hire 
unemployed people, a tax credit of up to $4,000 to hire these folks, 
take them off the unemployed rolls, and put them to work.
  I went to several job centers during the August recess. One was in 
McHenry, IL, and one was in Elgin, IL. I spent the better part of the 
day sitting with unemployed people and talking to them. You ought to go 
there. If you think unemployed Americans--the 14 million on whom we 
hear the statistics--are living the life of luxury on their 
unemployment checks, they are not. Most of them are struggling to 
survive, and many of them come each day to a job center to brush up 
their resume, to find out the latest people asking for new workers and 
put in new applications day after day. Many of them are discouraged 
after submitting hundreds of applications with no response. Some go 
back to school. I met a few who really made the right life choice by 
going back to take courses at community college, where they could 
afford it, or at job-training centers where there would be no charge to 
them, so they could pick up a new skill in an area in which they could 
get a job. That is the reality. The President is trying to create tax 
incentives for small businesses to hire those people.
  Usually the Republicans who come to the floor applaud tax cuts. My 
experience is that they are for tax cuts when times are good and bad, 
but this time they are against these tax cuts. What is the difference 
between these tax cuts and the ones the Republicans historically 
support? There are two differences: The President's tax cuts are 
focused on middle-income families, not the wealthiest, and they are the 
President's tax cuts. Those are the two differences.
  I hope some on the Republican side will reflect on the fact, as the 
President said, that the American people are not going to reward us for 
our campaign rhetoric if this economy does not turn around. They want 
us to work together to solve the problems facing our economy. They want 
tax cuts for working families. They want small businesses to have an 
incentive to hire people. They want us to focus on creating good-paying 
jobs here at home. What kinds of jobs? Building America.
  As the President said, if we are going to succeed in this world, we 
need to outeducate our competitors, outinnovate our competitors, and 
outbuild them.
  I went to China over Easter. What is happening in that country is 
incredible. They are building in every direction--building cranes and 
construction activity everywhere. They are building the infrastructure 
in China to become the No. 1 economic power of the world in the 21st 
century. What are we doing? We are hearing speech after speech saying 
that because of the deficit, we cannot invest in America. Some say we 
cannot invest in education. They argue that we cannot invest in 
research, we cannot invest in building America. I think they are wrong.
  The deficit is a serious challenge. Even the Bowles-Simpson 
Commission, which I served on and voted for, said: When you get serious 
about cutting spending, do it when this recession is behind you. They 
know, we know you can't balance the budget with 14 million Americans 
out of work.
  Let me say a word about the safety net in America. I made a visit in 
Champagne, IL, to a food-distributing operation. They distribute food 
to pantries and soup kitchens all around central Illinois. 
Unfortunately, their business has never been better. More and more 
families are showing up in these places for a helping hand. I went in 
there to hear how they are doing. They are getting a lot of help from 
the private sector that donates food that is near expiration, for 
example, and a lot of contributions from churches and charitable 
individuals. It is very heartwarming to see it.
  As I went to tour this place, there was a young woman there. She was 
an attractive, well-dressed woman. I assumed she worked for this food 
depository. She said to me that she had a job in a local school 
district as a teacher's aide. I was a little bit puzzled as to whether 
she was on the board of directors or what her connection was. She came 
there to tell me that as a single mom with two little kids, even with a 
job in the school district, which she was happy to have, she still 
needed food stamps to put food on the table every day for her kids.
  I don't think Americans--those of us lucky enough to never have to 
worry about the next meal--know what families are going through, 
working families struggling with low income, trying to keep their kids 
well-fed and to do what every parent wants to do. More and more of 
these families are going to soup kitchens very quietly because that is 
a meal they don't have to pay for. They are going to the pantries to 
pick up the groceries. I have seen them in one of the nicest and most 
prosperous counties in my State, DuPage County. I went to the pantries 
there, and I saw the people coming through the door. You would not be 
able to pick them out, but they are working families who need a helping 
hand. That is the reality. That is why the safety net is so important.
  I am troubled that so many people today are on food stamps. I am not 
troubled that they are on food stamps; I am troubled because they have 
to be on food stamps. I hear critics come to the floor who say: There 
are too darned many people on food stamps. There is something wrong 
here.
  What is wrong is not the food stamps; what is wrong is hunger and 
low-income and working families struggling to get by paycheck to 
paycheck. That is what is wrong. The number of Americans now qualifying 
for this food stamp assistance is even going up among those who are 
employed, such as the lady I met in Champagne, IL. That is a reality.
  Something else is happening too. As more and more people lose their 
jobs, they lose their health insurance. When I sit down with the 
unemployed, that is one of the first items that comes up. Once you have 
lost that health insurance premium your employer helps you pay, most 
folks can't afford it. It is just way beyond them. So they are out 
there without insurance, and they are vulnerable. Some of them have 
sick kids, chronically ill children, and they worry about it. They go 
to the free clinics. We are seeing more and more working families 
showing up at free clinics across America. That is a reality of this 
economy too.
  When we talk about cutting spending on Medicaid, keep in mind who 
receives Medicaid payments in America. In my State of Illinois, 36 
percent of Illinois children are covered by Medicaid insurance. When it 
comes to births in the State of Illinois, 52 percent of all births in 
Illinois are paid for by Medicaid. But the biggest single expense in 
Medicaid is neither one of those. Mr. President, 20 percent of the 
Medicaid recipients in my State account for 60 percent of the cost of 
the program: the elderly--parents, grandparents, great-grandparents in 
nursing homes and convalescent centers, on Medicare and broke and stay 
there because Medicaid steps in and helps them keep things together, so 
they have at least some care and some attention in the late years of 
their lives. When we talk about cutting spending in Medicaid, we are 
talking about hurting the most vulnerable people in America: children, 
such as the kids of that single mom I met; those who need prenatal care 
so their babies will be healthy; and, of course, the elderly who are 
stuck in that situation.
  The same thing is true with Medicare. I understand Medicare costs are 
going up dramatically. I also understand the number of people under 
Social Security and Medicare is going to rise as baby boomers reach 
that age. But we have to take care that at the end of the day we 
protect the basic premiums and benefits that are presently available 
under Medicare. For a lot of

[[Page S5605]]

seniors, it is their only health insurance. It is what keeps them 
independent and strong. We can't compromise that basic protection by 
privatizing Medicare or raising the cost of Medicare beyond the reach 
of senior citizens.
  Finally, when it comes to Social Security, let me just say that this 
is a program which means a lot. For 70 percent of Social Security 
recipients, it is a majority of their retirement. For 25 percent of the 
Social Security recipients, it is all they get. That is it. So guarding 
Social Security and protecting its future is important for our parents 
and grandparents. It is important for our country and for its future as 
well.
  The President came forward, and he said: This is my jobs bill. This 
is what I think will help move America forward, put more spending power 
in the hands of working families, create incentives for small 
businesses to hire people, focus on putting firefighters, cops, and 
teachers back to work. That is a priority in our country for sure, and 
investing in building in America.
  One of the few lines the President had that got a bipartisan standing 
ovation--and there were not many last Thursday--was when he said it is 
an embarrassment that 10 percent of our returning veterans are 
unemployed. Let's put our veterans back to work. That is part of our 
President's plan.
  When I listened to the Senator from Alabama--he doesn't like the way 
the President is paying for the plan, but he does pay for it. How does 
he pay for it? One thing he does is he reduces the Federal subsidy to 
oil and gas companies. Filled your tank lately? Take a look at what 
they are charging at the pump. In Illinois and most places, it is over 
$4. That is translating into the highest reported profits in the 
history of American business. Oil companies have never ever had it so 
good. President Obama has said--and I agree with him--that if there 
were ever a moment in time when the Federal subsidies to these oil 
companies should come to an end, this is it. The money saved should go 
to small businesses and families across America in this difficult 
economy.
  The President also believes--and I agree with him--that the 
wealthiest among us, those who are most comfortable, should be asked to 
share in the sacrifice. There are some on the other side who would not 
accept one penny more in taxes on the wealthiest people in America. I 
don't get it. As I travel around Illinois, a lot of families are 
sacrificing in this tough economy. They know they have to. It is the 
only way they are going to make it. They know that some of the 
government programs which have been around in the past are not going to 
be there in the future or may be not as generous.
  If working families and middle-class families across America accept 
that reality, why can't the wealthiest families in America accept it 
too? Honestly, I think they can. By and large, the people I know who 
are blessed with a lot of wealth and a pretty comfortable life have 
said to me: Senator, I don't need all of this. I don't need all of that 
Social Security payment. I can get by without it. I don't mind paying a 
little more in taxes.
  Those are the people I run into. But you hear from the other side 
that is totally unacceptable. Some of them have said the President's 
plan is going to fall flat on its face because it taxes the wealthy in 
America. I think the wealthy should pay their fair share, and I think 
the President's plan is an honest, good plan that moves us forward. So 
for those who are critical of it, give me your alternative.
  I wrote down here what the Senator from Alabama suggested. He wants 
more energy produced here at home. I am for that. I think we ought to 
go to places where it is environmentally responsible and produce more 
energy here in the United States. But I will say two things to keep in 
mind:
  No. 1, all of the known oil and gas reserves in the United States of 
America that we could reach onshore and offshore equal 3 percent of the 
known oil and gas reserves in the world. Each year, the United States 
of America consumes 25 percent of the oil and gas consumed in the 
world.
  We cannot drill our way into energy independence. We can expand the 
base and do it in an environmentally responsible way, perhaps find 
better sources, newer sources for things such as natural gas, but this 
is not the answer to our prayers.
  Secondly, moving toward energy efficiency is not only good for the 
environment, it is good for the bottom line for a family and for a 
business, promoting efficiency.
  My wife and I take a little pride in the fact that we own a car, a 
Ford Fusion Hybrid, and we were kind of patting ourselves on the back a 
little bit. As we came back from vacation in Michigan, we were getting 
36 miles a gallon. We felt pretty good about it. I was bragging to my 
friends about it, and now I am bragging on the Senate floor. It can be 
done. We can create more fuel-efficient vehicles. We didn't compromise 
anything, and we bought American.
  I think that is what we need to encourage in this country: cars and 
other energy-saving equipment made in this country, creating jobs, 
reducing the need for energy to be imported from overseas and reducing 
the pollution that, unfortunately, hinders our environment and our 
health. I think that is a good thing.
  So on the Senator's first point, sure, more energy at home, but put 
it in perspective. That is not the answer to America's economic needs.
  The second point he says is to eliminate certain regulations. That 
could be true. I am sure the President agrees there are regulations now 
that don't make any sense. Get rid of them. I am not sure this is a big 
ball and chain being dragged around by our economy, but there is no 
sense in wasting time or money on regulations that really don't serve a 
good public purpose.
  The final point he said--and I couldn't agree more--tax reform. We 
lose $1.2 trillion a year to the Tax Code. Credits and deductions and 
exclusions and special favors written in the Tax Code for businesses 
and individuals have to come to an end. I actually think that is a good 
way to raise revenue and maybe even reduce marginal tax rates for 
corporations and individuals in the process.

  That is what Bowles-Simpson said. So even my friend from Alabama who 
spoke earlier--even he and I can find some common ground. I hope he 
will agree with me and the President: doing nothing is unacceptable. 
The President has said: No more games, no more delay, no more politics. 
Do something. That is the message I got in August, as I returned to 
Illinois. It is a message I hope my colleagues share as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.


                            A Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I do almost on a 
weekly basis, to talk about the health care law and, I do that as a 
physician, someone who has practiced medicine in Wyoming for a quarter 
of a century, taking care of Wyoming families. I come to the floor 
because I have great concerns about this health care law.
  We know--history proves--that landmark pieces of legislation written 
in Congress often contain drafting errors at one stage or another 
during the bill's development. This is one of the main reasons most 
landmark bills are written and negotiated in an open and transparent 
manner. Writing and negotiating bills in this way helps Members of 
Congress minimize mistakes. It helps uncover any unintentional 
consequences. It helps fix problems. This is done through rigorous 
committee and floor debate, as well as House-Senate conference 
committees, as the bills go through the process.
  Most importantly, doing something in an open and transparent manner 
gives the American people, the folks at home, an opportunity to read a 
bill, to study it, to think about it, to discuss it during townhall 
meetings with their Members, and ask questions and weigh in.
  Well, unfortunately, we all know the largest health care law ever 
enacted did not undergo an open, transparent, or bipartisan process. 
President Obama

[[Page S5606]]

promised the American people they could watch the discussions and the 
writing process--he said--on C-SPAN. Well, instead, the President and 
Democrat leaders in both the House and the Senate sealed themselves 
behind closed doors. Their strategy? Pass sweeping health care 
legislation based on stealth and speed. Use sound bites to sell America 
about expanding coverage, about cutting costs, about improving quality, 
and then offer very few details explaining exactly how the bill would 
impact individual Americans, nor what it would cost the country.
  Well, while this entire strategy was being played out, the President 
and Washington Democrats were writing the legislation behind closed 
doors. Why? Well, to limit the time the bills could be read and 
reviewed by the American public. Some in Washington thought rushing a 
health care bill into law before America could read it was the perfect 
way to avoid public debate and public questioning.
  Many of us recall when former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi 
infamously said: First, you have to pass the bill to find out what is 
in it. Well, the President passed his health care law, and the American 
people continue, on a daily basis, to find out what is in it. They do 
not like it, and it is easy to understand why.
  As the American people had a chance to read the details, they started 
asking more questions. The numbers simply were not adding up. Health 
care costs, they were seeing, were going up, even though the President 
promised that health care costs would go down. There were costly 
mandates on small employers, and that was going to discourage hiring. 
Nancy Pelosi said they would hire 400,000 people immediately. They have 
not been hired. She said 4 million new workers would be hired 
ultimately. We have not seen it yet.
  Mandates we have seen come out of the health care law do nothing to 
spur economic growth and help the 9.1 percent of individuals 
nationwide--14 million Americans--who are currently unemployed and are 
looking for work. Then there are even more government orders forcing 
individuals to buy one-size-fits-all, government-approved insurance or 
face a fine.
  The American people have had 17 months to find out what is in the 
President's health care law. One news report after another has been 
uncovering a laundry list of so-called glitches in the health care law. 
Well, former Speaker Pelosi wanted the American people to find out what 
was in the law, and 17 months later the American people are finding out 
that the President and Washington Democrats did not even write it 
correctly.
  On Wednesday, September 7, of this year, Investor's Business Daily 
printed an article titled, ``Oops! No ObamaCare Tax Credit Via Federal 
Exchanges?'' The article explains that the way ObamaCare was written, 
individuals who qualify for a taxpayer-funded subsidy to buy 
government-approved health insurance in the new State exchanges may not 
get it. Section 1311 of the health care law requires the States to set 
up a State-run ``exchange.'' This State-based exchange is a place where 
individuals can use their government subsidy to buy health insurance. 
Now, if a State declines to set up their own exchange, then section 
1321 mandates that the Federal Government set it up and run it for 
them.
  Here is the catch: The health care law, as written, as signed by the 
President, explicitly says the taxpayer-funded subsidies can only go to 
people who are enrolled in exchanges set up by the State. Nowhere does 
the health care law mention that the subsidy can be given to people 
enrolled in the Federal exchange.
  So the American people are now finding out that their family might 
actually qualify for government help to buy health insurance, but they 
are not going to receive the help. Instead, individuals enrolled in 
federally run exchanges could be forced to buy health insurance that, 
absolutely, they cannot afford.
  Not only might this law cause individuals to spend money they do not 
have, the law may also offer taxpayer-funded subsidies to people who do 
not actually need it. Let me repeat that. The law may actually offer 
taxpayer-funded subsidies to people who do not actually need it.
  At a time when our country can hardly afford to spend money we do not 
have, Medicare's Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, exposed yet another 
glitch in the President's health care law. The law allows approximately 
3 million middle-class early retirees to qualify for Medicaid. Well, 
Medicaid is a safety net program designed to help low-income Americans.
  Here is how this one works: The health care law defines how the 
Federal Government will set an individual's Medicaid eligibility. The 
calculations are all based on income. Here is the glitch: The health 
care law excludes a large part of an individual's Social Security 
income from that calculation. Well, today, Federal low-income 
assistance programs are required to count Social Security benefits as 
part of an individual's income. Thanks to the health care law, early 
retirees earning up to $58,840 a year could now be eligible for 
Medicaid.
  Here is what Mr. Foster said in an Associated Press article. He said:

       I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, 
     but that just doesn't make sense.

  This is the Chief Actuary of Medicare. ``I don't generally comment,'' 
he says, ``on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make 
sense.''
  Well, I agree. That is why I cosponsored legislation introduced by 
Senator Mike Enzi closing this loophole. Senator Enzi's bill, S. 1376, 
changes the health care law subsidy eligibility calculation to include 
all nontaxable Social Security income.
  The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation 
estimate if we enacted Senator Enzi's bill, we will save the Federal 
Government and the American people about $13 billion. The Senate should 
immediately take up S. 1376 and pass it. This is $13 billion we can 
save right now, today. Let's show the American people that when we see 
our country spending money that it shouldn't, we will take a stand, 
collectively as a Senate, and stop it.
  These examples--these two examples--inevitably beg the question: What 
next? Clearly, the self-described ``most transparent Administration in 
history'' has a lot of explaining to do. I do not believe my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, who wrote this very flawed health care 
law--and they did it behind closed doors--I do not think they knew what 
they were doing when they wrote these provisions. How do I know that? 
Well, if they understood how devastating their policies would be, I 
think they might have had second thoughts.
  How many more disruptive, ticking time bombs are there lurking in 
this law and in the regulations that still have not been written about 
this health care law that was signed a year and a half ago? We do not 
know. We do not know because many of the provisions do not even go into 
effect until the year 2014 or later.
  As a physician who has practiced medicine a long time, cared for 
patients all around the State of Wyoming, been active in the Wyoming 
health fairs, bringing low-cost health screenings to people all around 
the Cowboy State, I intend to fight each and every day in this Senate 
to make sure the American people will not have to find out what kind of 
additional ticking time bombs there are in the health care law. That is 
because I am more committed than ever to repeal the health care law and 
replace it with patient-centered care, replace it with health care 
reforms that help American families get the care they need, from the 
doctor they want, at a price they can afford.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest 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.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know we have had several speeches over 
the last couple of hours on very important topics--the jobs bill, our 
efforts to stimulate the recovery, a response from one of our 
Democratic leaders to Senator Sessions, and the good Senator who was 
just speaking talking about health care--but I have

[[Page S5607]]

come to focus our attention, if I could, again this afternoon on a 
particular issue. We spent most of yesterday talking about a matter 
that is absolutely right at hand; that is, disaster relief funding and 
calling on this Senate and the House of Representatives to focus some 
immediate and comprehensive thought and attention on this subject, 
which is affecting so many of our constituents--Republicans, Democrats, 
and Independents--in big cities, small towns, and rural areas all over 
this country.
  In fact, this is the first year in our memory and in, I think, the 
recorded recent history, we have had a Presidentially declared disaster 
in 48 of our 50 States. Just a few days ago, we along the eastern 
seaboard and the gulf coast, where I am from representing Louisiana, 
suffered from the original hit and then remnants of Tropical Storm Lee 
and then Hurricane Irene.
  There are some Senators who joined me in a press conference earlier 
today. I think it was the Senator from North Carolina who said it has 
actually been three disasters: an economic disaster, in terms of an 
economy that is weak and fragile and we are doing our best to lift it 
and to strengthen it, and then Tropical Storm Lee and then Hurricane 
Irene.
  It has been millions and millions of dollars of damage. 
Unfortunately, we on the gulf coast tragically are getting to be 
experts in this field because we, as Senators and House Members from 
the gulf coast, have battled multiple disasters over this last decade. 
Katrina and Rita, which broke all records, surpassed any planning this 
government has ever done.
  We had a FEMA that showed up not ready, not comprehensive enough in 
its view. Our people have suffered. But we have made a lot of changes 
since then, and here we are today with actually a better FEMA, from all 
accounts. I wish to give a lot of credit to this administration, 
particularly, and not just Homeland Security. But the Cabinet of this 
President has been extraordinary in their reasonableness when it comes 
to this subject.
  I have seen the opposite. So I think I am in a position to see the 
difference. It is a big difference in this Obama administration in 
terms of the Cabinet. They want to say yes to disaster victims. They 
did not want to say no. That is very important. They cannot always say 
yes to everything, to rebuild every building, repave every street, 
elevate every home. But they are trying to say yes. Most importantly, 
the lawyers have been instructed to find a way forward, as opposed to 
instruction that came from the last administration which was to find a 
way to say no.
  So let me give credit where credit is due, to the Obama 
administration and their willingness to be flexible, to be forward 
leaning, to have attorneys who are trying to be on the side of the 
taxpayer, on the side of the victims, and not shortchanging people in 
times of desperate need.
  Having said that, the administration cannot do it all on its own. 
They need Congress, as the Constitution says, to provide the funding so 
the executive branch can do its job. The executive branch, by all 
accounts, even Republicans have come to the floor from States that have 
been hard hit and said: It is a more muscular FEMA, it is a more 
dynamic FEMA, it is a more flexible FEMA.
  I wish to thank Senators Lieberman and Collins. They are the 
authorizers. Yes, I have had a part of it--others have, but they have 
worked tirelessly after Katrina and the disaster that happened on the 
gulf coast, where we were all shamed when we saw what did not happen 
that should have.
  We fixed a lot of it, and that is something to be happy and proud 
about. When government does set its mind to improve things, it can. But 
we cannot do anything without the funding. Right now, FEMA is empty. 
The pot of money is empty. Projects, millions, hundreds of millions of 
dollars today, not just in my State but in California, in Tennessee, in 
Iowa, in Texas, and in North Dakota--and I could go on and on--but for 
the Record let me say a couple.
  In Tennessee, mitigation of private residences from the 2010 floods 
has been halted. For those who might not be familiar with the word 
``mitigation,'' which most people are, it means one could be elevating 
their house, one could be putting shutters or storm windows on their 
windows. Let's see what else. A person could be potentially 
strengthening the frame of their house if they are trying to mitigate 
against high winds from a tornado. There are rules that allow people to 
try to improve their home so the next time it happens not only are they 
not homeless, but taxpayers are not paying again for the same sort of 
incident.
  The Federal Government, under good policy, requires a certain portion 
of all disaster funding to be specific, to go to mitigation because 
taxpayers think, when we are trying to rebuild from a flood or a storm 
or a tornado or a bridge collapse, do not just build the same old 
thing, try to mitigate so it does not happen again. That is smart 
because then we are not double, triple spending taxpayer money.
  But in Tennessee this family, let's say, is in the middle of 
elevating their home. Let's say they have gotten it off the ground by 2 
feet, and the contractor showed up on Monday. They were sent home 
because this project has been stopped. So somewhere there are homes in 
Tennessee--I am not sure in what particular community--where private 
sector contractors, many small business owners and their employees, 
showed up to work and were told: Go home. FEMA is out of money.
  We have to fix this this week before we leave and, if not, at the 
latest by next week.
  In Iowa, repairs for an electric utility--I am not sure who provides 
utilities in Iowa. Potentially, it may be, as in my State in rural 
areas, the local rural co-op. Everybody knows what a rural co-op is. 
Their project has been shut down. Potentially, people are still 
receiving electricity. I do not think people are sitting in the dark. I 
am hoping not. But whatever they were planning to repair and fix in 
Iowa has been halted because we have run out of money.
  In Texas, repairs to the University of Texas medical facility have 
been stopped. In Louisiana, roadway construction has been stopped. In 
fact, there was an article in our paper, the Times-Picayune, just this 
week that said $100 million for Jefferson Parish--$100 million--that is 
just 1 of my parishes, 1 of 64, the suburban parish that sits right 
beside Orleans that was very hard hit by these storms, not as hard as 
Orleans Parish but received billions of dollars of damage--those 
projects have been put on hold while we move that money to help the 
victims in the Northeast. That should not be the case.
  We need to act quickly to refill the FEMA funds. In addition, I 
understand in North Dakota and in other places there are problems. It 
is not just the DRF. The Corps of Engineers in its budget last year did 
not have enough money for emergencies. I slipped out of the Chamber a 
few minutes ago to go actually meet with the mayor of Grand Isle, who 
was here, as he is quite often, advocating on behalf of the only 
barrier island that is inhabited in the State of Louisiana, and he 
brought up pictures. Again, they are too small to see, but I am going 
to have them blown up for tomorrow. But I have in my hand pictures of 
the levees that were just ripped up and destroyed again from Tropical 
Storm Lee. These were levees on the gulf that we just completed.
  But because the Corps of Engineers, when they rebuild levees, in 
their authorizing legislation are prohibited--which makes no sense 
whatsoever, it is a complete waste of taxpayer money--they are 
prohibited from betterment. They can build back what was there, but 
they cannot build it better or higher, unless they are directed to do 
so.
  I am about ready to direct them because I am tired, on behalf of my 
people and the people of this country and the taxpayers, from 
rebuilding levees 10 times in a matter of 5 years. It is a waste of 
money--it is aggravating to the people whose homes are behind these 
levees--because we do not even have a policy, when we are building 
levees, to be ordered to build them stronger, higher, except, of 
course, in the case of some levee systems in Katrina. That was 
specifically directed, and it is being done.
  We are building around the city of New Orleans a much stronger, much 
better system. One would think that would be being done all over the 
country. It is not. Why? Because we are

[[Page S5608]]

short on funding, short on political will, and short on imagination and 
creativity when it comes to building infrastructure in this country. I, 
for one, am tired of it. So are the people I represent.
  I am asking the other side of the aisle to step up and to provide 
funding, funding that is not offset in the middle of a disaster. We 
will figure out how to pay for these later--these disaster funds later. 
But as I think Senator Leahy said so eloquently in our press conference 
today: Do the Republicans, some people in the Republican Party, 
actually believe we want fire departments all over the United States, 
when someone's house is on fire and they show up with the engines, to 
debate in the middle of the street how they are going to pay for the 
extra overtime to put out the fire? I do not think so.
  Even if the fire department is broke, even if the funding has run 
out, we do not want to have a debate over how they are going to pay for 
overtime when the fire is burning. Put the fire out. Bring the people 
to safety. Put the families in shelter. Then go back to the city 
council meeting next week and they can debate for as long as they want 
how they are going to ultimately pay for it.
  We paid for World War II, obviously. It was a long time ago. It is 
completely paid for. We paid for World War I. We are paying for 
Afghanistan. We are paying for Iraq, which, by the way, not one, 
single, solitary Republican--and not many Democrats, for that matter, 
but not one Republican whom I can recall stood and asked or debated for 
5 seconds how we were going to pay for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  But when the people of Vermont stand in front of their bridges 
collapsed, their homes collapsed, their schools collapsed, and say: We 
need help, we have to have now a month-long debate on how we are going 
to pay for it. We have not done this since the 1800s.
  We will eventually pay for it. America has to pay for everything. We 
will pay for it. We do not have to have that debate now. What we do 
have to have a debate about is how do we repair levees and what is the 
best way to mitigate it. What are the new technologies that can be used 
to make our communities stronger and smarter? How can we streamline the 
process? How can we eliminate the redtape? How can we get help to 
people faster? That is what we should be debating.
  Instead, I have Cantor and Boehner making us argue about what offsets 
there are. So I have to go to the State of Maryland and say: Senator, 
what can you give up this year in your State? I have to go to Michigan: 
What can you up in Michigan? I have to go to California: What can you 
give up in California, so we can pay for people who are underwater in 
Vermont and North Carolina?
  What kind of government is this? I do not want to be a part of that 
and I am not going to be. So we have to fund these disasters now. The 
saddest thing about all this--it is sad and it is also puzzling and it 
is perplexing and it is aggravating is that we already sort of made 
this deal 1 month ago, when we negotiated that big agreement we all 
came to, about how the levels of funding would be for 2012.
  Everybody remembers that, before we left for August, and we had this 
big knock-down, drag-out--in that agreement, our leadership, 
Republicans and Democrats, already agreed to do something that I think 
is very smart. I want to show what they agreed to. They agreed--because 
it is a puzzlement--how do we fund in advance disasters, how do we know 
how much to set aside. It is a problem because every year is different.
  I wish to show what our problem is, so people listening can give me 
their own suggestions about how to solve it. In 2003, we set aside, in 
the whole budget of the United States--we can see this a little bit--
$800 million for disasters. But we had $1.7 billion. So we were short 
$984 million. We funded it. That went on our books.
  The next year we said: Well, this year we had $1.7 billion in 
disasters. So the next year we put $1.8 in our bill, thinking we would 
cover it because last year was $1.7. But, lo and behold, we had an 
additional $3 billion worth of disaster funding. We did not know these 
disasters were going to happen.
  So the next year we increased the amount of money in our base budget. 
Then, lo and behold, in that year, we put in $2 billion dollars. 
Katrina hit.
  The levees broke. Do you know what the bill came in for? It was $43 
billion. We had budgeted $2 billion because in the history of the past 
that is all we needed to cover disasters. It went from $2 billion to 
$43 billion. Who would have had a crystal ball to know that? Did we sit 
and debate? Some people tried to, until I said there was no way I was 
going to have to find a $43 billion offset before we can let the people 
of the gulf coast know that help was on the way. We spent what was 
required to help the gulf coast.
  You can see the next year here. These numbers are very erratic, 
unpredictable. So what our leadership did, looking back on these 10 
years and listening to the debate and argument, was come up with a 
pretty good plan. They said, OK, we will throw out the high number, we 
will throw out the low number--in 2009 we didn't have any emergencies. 
Can you imagine 1 year that you have no declared emergencies, and the 
next year you have one in almost every State? That is how erratic this 
is. It is not as though we are not trying to plan. It is just 
impossible by the nature of what an emergency or disaster is. You can 
plan for them, but you cannot always predict how many you are going to 
have and where they will be. Of course, everybody understands that.
  What our leaders did is they threw out the top one and the bottom one 
and came up with an average. That average is about $11 billion--a very 
reasonable approach. So they put in our agreement that we made 30 days 
ago--we said, OK, next year, this is what the Federal Government can 
spend and, in addition to that, you can go up to the average. You can 
spend an additional $11 billion, which is a very small amount of money 
compared to the whole Federal budget.
  You would think we would not be having this debate. Why? The need is 
very evident, the history would dictate that we don't have debate over 
disasters, and the Republican and Democratic leadership has already 
provided a way, over and above our 2012 numbers, to pay for these 
disasters.
  I ask this: Why are we having to fight for this? That is a very good 
question. I think it is because some people on the other side of the 
aisle think this is a good thing to fight about. They think they have 
to find a pay-for for everything we do even, as I have described, when 
you cannot predict. Even if you do plan responsibly, you never know, as 
in the cases of Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. But our leadership negotiated 
a way forward.
  Yet we have people all over the country looking to the Republican 
leadership and listening to Representative Cantor and to Speaker 
Boehner saying: I want to help you, ladies and gentlemen, but we have 
to find an offset.
  I think people might say: Why didn't we hear that when they sent 
troops into Afghanistan or Iraq? Why didn't we hear that when they are 
rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan? The same people are not yelling and 
screaming--or didn't do it when we went in there. I think we have a 
good point.
  I am saying I am proud of the Senate for last night, with Democrats 
mostly--and, yes, about 8 Republicans--who voted to move this debate 
forward. I thank particularly Senator Blunt from Missouri, who is an 
outspoken leader on the Appropriations Committee, for the need to act 
now, act quickly, to fund the DRF, the Corps of Engineers. Of course, 
Missouri has had terrible tornadoes and flooding. Not only did they 
have Joplin, but they had the great flood of the Mississippi River, 
which was the highest in 50 years. It was so high along our capital 
city when I visited our mayor a couple months ago--that is Baton Rouge, 
which is our largest city, since 100,000 people left New Orleans to 
literally live on higher ground, although it has broken their hearts 
and divided their families. They have moved to Baton Rouge, as we are 
rebuilding levees and our flood control is stronger in the southeastern 
part of our State. People spend time walking on levees and riding bikes 
on the levees. Of course, mechanical vehicles are not allowed. You 
cannot have cars, trucks, and four-wheelers because that would be 
destructive to our levees. Our levees are quite huge. They are almost 
like linear parks. For the first time in the history of anybody who can 
remember, the mayor had to declare that

[[Page S5609]]

everyone stay off the levees because the water was so high and seeping 
through. We literally thought maybe some of these great levee systems 
would breach. Happily, they did not. It was a frightening situation for 
millions and millions.
  In some parts of Missouri, and other parts north of us, the levees 
did breach. Sometimes the levees will blow to protect other areas. It 
is frightening if your business is behind one of those levees, as North 
Dakota residents know all too well.
  Nonetheless, we should not be debating this. I hope our bill will 
pass this week and get over to the House for a quick vote. If the House 
decides to send us a continuing resolution, please, I want the 
leadership to hear clearly what I am saying--and I will send them a 
message by letter in the next few minutes--please do not think you can 
nickel and dime recovery efforts, that you can fund it 6 weeks at a 
time, or 4 weeks at a time. Disaster recovery doesn't operate that way. 
Our mayors, Governors, the Republican Governor of New Jersey, the 
Republican Governor of Virginia, the mayor of Patterson, who was with 
us today, and mayors up along the east coast who are with their people 
every day--the mayor of Joplin, MO, who has to be able to know that he 
can plan a year out or 2 years out--having to rebuild an entire town is 
overwhelming even if you have the money and the plan. Can you imagine 
if you sort of have a plan, but you don't know if the Federal 
Government will provide you money? Do you know the frustrating council 
meetings and school board meetings that will be had, and they will say, 
well, the Republican party in Washington cannot figure out if we should 
get funding, but it is 6 weeks at a time?
  I will not allow that to happen. I am going to draw the line in the 
sand right now. You may get around me on it, but it will take a huge 
effort to get around this desk on that subject--a huge effort. If I 
have to shut the Senate down--and I have done it before--I will do it 
again, because I can tell you, as much as my name is Mary Landrieu, you 
cannot rebuild communities with 6-week plans. It took us 2 years to put 
together the Road Home Program--2 years after we got the funding. The 
reason we could not put it together before was--even though Mississippi 
had their money because President Bush gave it to them right away but 
made the people of Louisiana wait--because Congress would not decide 
how much money to give us. No mayor, no Governor, no matter how great 
they are, no matter how smart they are, no matter how many engineers 
they have, no matter how many Rotary Clubs are helping, no matter what 
the chamber of commerce is doing, I am telling you that it cannot be 
done without a reliable source of funding, so the planners can say 
something like this: We lost eight schools in this flood. They bring 
the community together--and these are how these discussions go--and say 
we might not have money to build all eight, but we have money to build 
six. Which six do you want to build, and where, what materials do you 
want to use, and which kids should go to which schools?
  I have been in these meetings. I am not going to allow the mayors and 
Governors to call their people together and say we lost six schools and 
we don't know when the money is coming to build them, and we cannot 
make any plans because the Republican leadership has decided that every 
6 weeks they are going to let us know how much money we are going to 
get.
  That is not going to happen.
  I want Speaker Boehner to think about this, and I want Mitch 
McConnell to think about this, and I want the Republican leadership to 
think about it. I will negotiate on the top number. I will talk about 
maybe FEMA doesn't need quite this much. I will talk about maybe the 
Corps of Engineers doesn't need that much. But I will not, under any 
circumstances, agree to a 6-week or 4-week continuing resolution. You 
may run the Government of the United States that way. We have, 
unfortunately, gotten used to it. That is a sad commentary, I might 
say, that we run the greatest government ever created in the eyes and 
vision and hearts of mankind, but we operate it on a 6-week basis. That 
might be the game we play with the government, but I am not going to 
allow that game to be played with people who have lost their homes, 
lost their businesses, and who look up from a storm and say, my gosh, 
what happened to me? Then they don't know what is going to happen 
because we cannot make a decision that lasts more than 6 months or a 
year. So the minimum will be 6 months. I hope we can find the will to 
do a whole year, because without that you are going to shut down 
recovery operations at a time when it is heartbreaking to think of 
small business owners who have lost their print shop or their dress 
store or their shoe store, and they see everybody talking about 
creating jobs. They used to have three of them last week--selling 
printing material or selling shoes or whatever--and they are trying to 
get their business back, and we cannot decide--even though we have the 
money, even though we already budgeted the money, and although we 
already made an agreement about how we would do this--we are going to 
still argue.
  I will tell you, if this is on the tea party's agenda, I suggest they 
take it off. If it is somebody else's agenda, please speak up. I have 
not had one single Republican Senator come down and defend this 
position, because it is indefensible. I hope when the leadership is 
negotiating--and they are doing so now--they will hear me in summary 
very quickly: The FEMA pot is empty. The Corps of Engineers is always 
running on fumes. Levees are breaking and flooding, and it is occurring 
in places that haven't flooded in a hundred years. When we wake up and 
realize that we have to put more money in emergency funding and be 
there when our people are hurting, as they are now--and we will 
eventually pay for this; we don't have to figure that out in the next 
30 days. We have to give them a green light and the billions of dollars 
they need to operate for a year. Everything else is negotiable. But 
this is not going to be negotiated. We are not going to rebuild pieces 
of 48 States 4 weeks at a time. That will not happen. Whatever amount 
of money we give, let it be for as long as we can make it, let it be as 
robust as it can possibly be, and let's give a green light to our 
Republican Governors, Republican mayors, Independents, and Democrats 
out there, who are shellshocked about the work before them.
  The people in neighborhoods are still crying and in shock about what 
they have to do in making decisions. Should we come back? Should we not 
come back? What should our neighborhood or community do? Maybe we 
should all move to higher ground. These decisions are being made right 
now. The last thing they should worry about is Congress debating 
whether there is money there to turn that hose on.
  Let's do our job the way we have done it for 150 years.
  Let's continue to do it and let our people know we are there for 
them, as we try to be there for other people in the world who are 
caught in situations such as this. We most certainly need to be here 
for our people in America.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about a 
site of particular historic significance to the Commonwealth of 
Virginia and an action we in Virginia are requesting the President 
make. But before I get to that subject, I want to take a moment to echo 
what I know the Presiding Officer said, and my colleague, the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana, and so many other of my 
colleagues who have come to the floor over the last few days to express 
concern and talk about the series of natural disasters and calamities 
our various States have experienced over the last few weeks and months.
  We have had, in effect, the trifecta in the Commonwealth of Virginia 
in the last month, where, about a month ago, we had an earthquake hit--
something that was a bit unprecedented in Virginia--which shut down 
schools in Louisa County. That earthquake also caused damage at the 
Washington Monument and at the National Cathedral, but in central 
Virginia--in Louisa

[[Page S5610]]

County, in Mineral, and Culpeper, and other places around Virginia--it 
caused enormous damage.
  We had Hurricane Irene, which--again, through central Virginia and 
down into Hampton Roads--caused enormous damage. Then, most recently, 
we had Tropical Storm Lee, where I had the opportunity to visit a 
community not far from where I know some of the distinguished folks who 
work in the Clerk and Parliamentarian's Offices live--in Alexandria. 
Not too far away from there is a neighborhood named Huntington, VA. 
This community I walked through has been flooded out three times in the 
last decade. So we have a 100-year floodplain. Yet three times in the 
last decade they have been flooded out.
  So all these folks--whether in Hampton Roads in Richmond or the folks 
in Louisa County and central Virginia with the earthquake or the folks 
in Huntington--are saying: We just need that assistance that other 
communities have when they have been met by natural disasters. What 
purpose do we have for government other than to make sure there is an 
emergency response, and then after that response that there is an 
ability to get people back on their feet?
  So I thank my colleagues again, particularly the Senator from 
Louisiana, who has been tireless on this issue of making sure FEMA has 
the resources it needs to address these disasters, and that we do so in 
a meaningful way. We recognize, of course, we can't just put these on a 
credit card forever; that we have to have a rational way to pay it back 
and figuring out a 10-year rolling cycle to budget for emergencies 
ought to be part of our discussions going forward. But trying to say 
that must be done at this moment, with the economic downturn and the 
recession, while communities are in need--whether they are in Oregon or 
in Virginia or one of the other 48 States that have had a disaster 
declaration issued over the last year--is not the way we ought to be 
doing business.


                              Fort Monroe

  Mr. President, in addition, I rise today to encourage President Obama 
to use his authority under an act that probably most in this Chamber 
are not that familiar with--called the 1906 Antiquities Act--to 
designate Hampton, VA, Fort Monroe, as a national monument, which would 
make it an official part of the National Park Service. Our hope is that 
the President will consider designating this in the coming days as this 
historic fort is turned back over to the State of Virginia, having gone 
through the BRAC process, with the Federal Government disposing of it.
  Let me take a moment on the Senate floor this afternoon to tell you a 
bit about this special place. This fort was built in the early 1800s, 
but, actually, the fortifications go back much earlier than that. It is 
an area called Point Comfort. As early as 1608 Captain John Smith 
recognized the importance of building a fort at Point Comfort, as the 
English colonists called this land.
  From its very beginnings, Fort Monroe has been associated with many 
key figures in American history. Robert E. Lee supervised work on the 
fortress as a young U.S. Army lieutenant. Edgar Allan Poe, the famous 
poet--and I am sure our pages, at one point, hopefully, had to memorize 
``The Raven'' in high school--was a soldier at Fort Monroe. Abraham 
Lincoln, during the midst of the Civil War, paid a critical visit to 
Fort Monroe. And Harriet Tubman, an incredibly important American--who 
was only recently, in the last 50 or so years appropriately 
recognized--nursed wounded soldiers there in 1865.
  Another historic American figure had maybe mixed feelings about his 
visits to Fort Monroe. Jefferson Davis was at Fort Monroe on two very 
different occasions: First, as the U.S. Secretary of War, and later, as 
the former President of the Confederacy, he was imprisoned at Fort 
Monroe for 2 years.
  By World War II, Fort Monroe was the headquarters of our military's 
successful efforts to protect the mid-Atlantic coast. After World War 
II and to the current day it has been home of the Army Command 
responsible for training our warfighters.
  For all of these various events alone, I would argue, as a Virginian, 
that would warrant the designation of Fort Monroe as part of the 
National Park Service. But its true historic significance goes back, 
actually, to a night in May of 1861.
  During the Civil War, Fort Monroe had an important strategic role as 
one of the very few Union military installations located in the South 
that was never occupied by Confederate forces. For the folks who have 
traveled down to Norfolk and Virginia Beach, they know that Fort Monroe 
is the point that sticks out right before they go through the bridge-
tunnel that takes them over to Norfolk and Virginia Beach. It has a 
commanding view of the whole gateway into what we call Hampton Roads.
  On May 23, 1861, three slaves--Frank Baker, Shepard Mallory, and 
James Townsend--got into a small boat in Hampton, crossed the James 
River, and presented themselves at the front gate of Fort Monroe 
seeking safety and sanctuary. For the previous many weeks, Baker, 
Mallory, and Townsend had been forced by their owners to help construct 
a Confederate artillery post aimed directly at Fort Monroe. Obviously, 
that was not something these individuals wanted to be part of.
  I want you to think a moment about the choices that were being made 
by these three men--these three slaves--Frank Baker, Shepard Mallory, 
and James Townsend. They left behind the community where they had spent 
most, if not all, of their lives. At least two of the three left behind 
wives and children. It was entirely possible that once these three men 
reached Fort Monroe, the Union soldiers would simply turn them around 
and send them back to their owners.
  One of the things I think even students of American history sometimes 
forget is that it was the official U.S. Government policy, even in the 
so-called Confederate States, after the Civil War had begun in April of 
1861, to still turn slaves back over to their owners.
  Baker, Mallory, and Townsend had to know if they were returned as 
runaways, they could expect the most Draconian of punishments. But they 
figured the choice should be theirs to make, so they made it. They soon 
found themselves standing before the new commander of Fort Monroe, MG 
Benjamin Franklin Butler.
  Deciding it might be easier to apologize later rather than seek 
permission beforehand, General Butler made a huge and historically 
courageous decision. He classified the three slaves as ``contraband of 
war,'' a policy that was later adopted across the Union to protect any 
slaves who managed to reach Union lines. As a result, Virginia's Fort 
Monroe ultimately became a beacon of hope for thousands of enslaved 
people seeking freedom. In fact, Fort Monroe became known as the 
Freedom Fort.
  The day after General Butler's edict, eight more slaves showed up at 
Fort Monroe. The day after that, 47 more appeared. By the war's end, 
thousands--literally thousands--had appealed for contraband status at 
Fort Monroe. General Butler's declaration of this decision of 
``contraband of war'' helped change the course of the Civil War and our 
Nation's history.
  This Thursday, September 15, the U.S. Army will officially hand over 
Fort Monroe to the city of Hampton and the Commonwealth of Virginia as 
part of the 2005 BRAC process. I proudly join with my colleague Senator 
Webb, the bipartisan Virginia House delegation, Virginia's Governor Bob 
McDonnell, local residents, and the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation in urging the President to take this opportunity to 
declare Fort Monroe a national historic treasure. By using the 
Antiquities Act to grant this designation, it also will allow us to 
begin the work to create a national park at Fort Monroe.
  For more than 100 years, Presidents have used the Antiquities Act to 
protect some of America's most important and beloved historic places. 
As a matter of fact, it was use of the Antiquities Act that first 
designated the Grand Canyon as well as the Statue of Liberty. So there 
is obviously enormous historical precedent. And there is no dispute 
over the historical significance of Fort Monroe.
  Over the last few years, I have spent a considerable amount of time, 
both as Governor and then subsequently during the BRAC process and now 
as a Senator, working with State and local residents and officials to 
explore the

[[Page S5611]]

opportunities to partner with the National Park Service to preserve 
this incredible piece of American history. I spoke as recently as last 
Friday with the White House about Fort Monroe. I am hopeful we will 
have promising news in short order.
  It would certainly be timely if the President's decision could be 
announced this week, as the Army prepares to exit Fort Monroe, as our 
Nation marks the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, and as many 
Virginians focus anew on the future of this very special place.
  I feel this is an especially appropriate time for the President to 
recognize the crucial role Fort Monroe has played in our Nation's 
history, and I again urge him to use his long-established power under 
the Antiquities Act to keep this process on track.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Trade

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Last week, new trade figures were released. I know 
the Presiding Officer from North Carolina is very concerned about what 
has happened with these trade figures and what it means for jobs in her 
State and in my State.
  The trade deficit with China widened from $26.7 billion in June to 
$27 billion in July. That is one country in one month. Granted, it is 
the country we have the biggest trade deficit with, but it is 1 month. 
President Bush, Sr., some years ago, said that a $1 billion trade 
surplus or trade deficit translated into some 13,000 jobs. Whether that 
number is precise or quantifiable or measurable is not the point. The 
point is that when we have persistently large trade deficits month 
after month, year after year, now decade after decade, we know what it 
means to the industrial base in our country.
  I spent much of August in places such as Belmont County, St. 
Clairsville, Cleveland, Dayton, Mansfield, and Springfield, OH, where, 
in my State alone, these cities and communities had proud industrial 
heritages. They are places where people had real opportunity to join 
the middle class. After they graduated from high school, they could go 
and be trained and work in manufacturing and usually buy a home, a car, 
and send their child to college. My wife is the daughter of a utility 
worker, since deceased, in northeast Ohio, and she and her two younger 
sisters and brother were able to go to, in her case, Kent State, and 
other universities, in part paid for by her father's work in 
manufacturing--if you will, his union card--and assistance from 
government Pell grants and all they were able to do so the kids didn't 
graduate with huge debt the way they too often do now.
  The trade deficit with China through July 2011 totaled $160 billion, 
up from $145 billion over the same period in 2010. We debate the budget 
deficit, as we should. But too many politicians in this city, too many 
editorial writers, too many pundits and economists ignore the trade 
deficit. They are too focused on things such as pay-fors. They ignore 
how the trade deficit has a dangerous effect on American jobs.
  The best way to get our fiscal house in order is to get America 
working again, and one way to do that is by cracking down on unfair 
trade practices of some of our so-called trading partners. When the 
President steps up and enforces trade rules--and while I do not agree 
with the President sending the Korea, Panama, and Colombia trade 
agreements to the Congress for votes because I don't think they serve 
America's interests, I do believe this President, more than his 
predecessors, has been, relatively--I say ``relatively'' but blessedly 
so, and in some cases aggressive at enforcing trade rules. I have seen 
that in Youngstown in creating jobs. I have seen it in Loraine, where 
it has created jobs, and in Fenway, where it has created jobs, and it 
has helped our industry in Butler County in steel, in paper, and in 
tires.
  It is clear that part of this problem is currency manipulation from 
the Chinese, which undermines American manufacturing and our very own 
job-creating efforts. In June, the Economic Policy Institute released a 
new report showing that addressing Chinese currency manipulation could 
support the creation of 2.25 million jobs. Put that in contrast to what 
they say--the ``free traders at any cost'' sort of free market, free-
trade fundamentalists who preach: Pass NAFTA. It will mean hundreds of 
thousands of jobs. Pass CAFTA. Pass PNTR with China. It will mean 
millions of jobs.
  It never does. It means job growth, but the job growth usually takes 
place--with NAFTA, it was in Mexico; CAFTA, in Central America; and 
PNTR, in China, which is East Asia. There is job growth, but there is 
nothing close to net job growth in our country. Even that, the 
President is saying, with this new agreement with South Korea, that it 
will sustain or keep or contribute to sustaining or keeping 100,000 
jobs or so. So even the promises aren't that great on this new trade 
agreement, and we know they never live up to their promises. But we do 
also know if we stood up to currency manipulation, it could create 2.25 
million American jobs. My friends on the other side of the aisle don't 
ever want to do any kind of direct spending on infrastructure in terms 
of job creation; that costs tax money. I think it is a good investment; 
they don't. But standing up on currency we know doesn't cost American 
taxpayers and it will, in fact, mean American jobs.
  A paper mill in Butler County, down near Dayton and Cincinnati, 
someone who worked at that paper mill told me they are now competing 
with China for coated paper, which is a higher tech manufacturing of 
paper--the kind of magazine paper we all touch and use--that the pulp 
comes from Brazil, it is shipped to China, it is milled in China and 
shipped back to the United States and they undercut American prices. 
Yet only 10 percent of the cost of paper production is labor. What does 
that mean? It means they are gaming the currency system. They are 
subsidizing water and capital and land and they are paying low wages. 
How do we compete when they are not playing fair? Forget the low wages 
even for a minute. How do we compete when they are playing these 
currency games? By continuing the currency manipulation, we lose far 
too many jobs. By combating it, we help level the playing field for our 
manufacturers, we help our workers, we help spur our economic recovery.
  That is why I introduced the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act. It 
would strengthen countervailing duty laws to consider undervalued 
currency as an unfair subsidy in determining duty rates.
  So when we contest on a trade agreement, all we are saying when we 
contest is that undervalued currency is considered an unfair subsidy, 
because it is. It is not hard to convince people of that. It is not 
hard to illustrate or prove that. So when an industry such as the 
coated paper company in Hamilton or the oil country tubular steel used 
in drilling in Lorain or in Youngstown, where there is a new steel mill 
because of a trade decision the President made--thank you--or aluminum 
in Sidney--when an industry petitions the International Trade 
Commission for relief against unfair subsidies, currency manipulation 
under this new bill and amendment we are going to offer on the floor 
will be part of that investigation.
  This is a designation that would ensure the government has the tools 
to respond on behalf of American manufacturers and workers by imposing 
countervailing duties on subsidized exports from China.
  We have broad support here. Senator Schumer from New York, a 
Democrat, has been very involved. Senator Snowe from Maine, a 
Republican, has been very involved. Senator Stabenow, a Democrat from 
Michigan, and Senator Graham from South Carolina, a Republican, have 
been very involved in understanding that these kinds of currency 
manipulations cost us American jobs and undermine our economy. This 
designation would ensure the government has the tools to respond on 
behalf

[[Page S5612]]

of American manufacturers and workers by imposing these countervailing 
duties on subsidized exports from China. It is simple, straightforward, 
and achievable.
  Addressing currency manipulation would decrease our budget deficit up 
to $70 billion a year and somewhere between $500 billion and $800 
billion over 10 years if sustained. Addressing our trade deficit should 
be part of the debate in reducing our budget deficit. If we are going 
to create jobs, we have to ensure that our trading partners don't stack 
the deck. We want trade, and we want more of it, but we want fair 
trade, not this kind of phony free trade.
  Almost every country in the world practices trade according to their 
national interests. The United States in this body and the President of 
the United States--typically, Presidents in both parties--have 
practiced trade according to some economics textbook that is 20 years 
out of date. If we are serious about standing for American workers and 
companies that continue to play by the rules, we need to pass this 
legislation.
  With each passing week, more companies and workers are faced with the 
harsh realities of unfair competition and unwanted cutbacks due to 
Chinese currency manipulation. In towns and cities across our country--
go anywhere in this country, including Texas, where Senator Hutchison 
is from and who is awaiting a chance to speak on the floor, or North 
Carolina, the Presiding Officer's State, or my State, and we see that 
companies and workers are faced with the harsh realities of that unfair 
competition.
  Workers have the proud tradition of making products that matter to 
America. From the tanks made in Lima, OH, supporting our troops abroad, 
to steel tubes created in Lorain, equipping our energy markets, Ohio 
manufacturers are vital to our Nation's security and economy. Our 
national security, our economic security, our family security, all 
those are dependent on making things in the United States of America.
  My State is the third largest manufacturing State in the country. We 
are seventh in population, but we are third in manufacturing. We have 
lost far too many jobs in Zanesville and Jackson and Columbus and Akron 
because of this undermining of currency, because of this gaming of the 
system by China, its gaming of the system on currency.
  It is time to take bold action. It is time to stand up to China. It 
is time to practice trade according to our communities and our national 
interests. It is time to do that. It is time to pass this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                             Nasa's Vision

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wish to mark today, September 14 
of 2011, as the day that NASA announced our vision for the future. 
Since the shuttle was retired earlier this year and we saw the last 
people go into space on an American flight, many of us have worried 
that there wasn't going to be another heavy launch vehicle that would 
take our astronauts to beyond low earth orbit. Today, after much study 
and a lot of going back and forth with NASA, I was encouraged to see 
the design approved by both NASA and the OMB, and I think it is going--
well, it will be the heaviest, biggest, strongest, most robust vehicle 
we have seen since we put men on the Moon.
  I was very concerned because of the long timeframe. Congress asked 
that this design be delivered by January of this year. We kept getting 
delays and delays and delays. Finally, Senator Bill Nelson and I just 
got frustrated about that timeline, so we had meetings.
  As recently as yesterday, I met with the director of OMB, Mr. Jack 
Lew, who did come to my office to meet with Senator Nelson and myself 
and General Bolden, who is the NASA Administrator, to get his 
commitment that we would be on a robust timeline and that it would be 
as much a priority of NASA to go beyond low earth orbit as the ferry to 
the space station would be for NASA. We got those assurances from Mr. 
Lew and the NASA Administrator. Senator Nelson and myself, Senator 
Rockefeller was represented, Senator Boozman--we had all the relevant 
people in the loop on this issue because we want to make sure Congress 
and the administration are on the same goal with a timeline to achieve 
that goal.
  What worried us about the delays were the loss of cost efficiencies 
and the loss of experienced personnel to design that new heavy launch 
vehicle.
  We want to have the most experienced engineers who will use the 
proven technology that has been time tested and add to that proven 
technology the added boosters, the added capabilities that we know we 
must have to go to Mars, to an asteroid, and to make sure we do it in a 
safe manner.
  I am very encouraged by the commitments that were made and the 
timetables we are seeing. I am told by the NASA personnel that we are 
now going to look, in 1 week or 2, to have the contract modifications 
in place that will tell the workers that they are going to have those 
jobs, that we are going to have that expedience, that they have a 
project to work on. I think it is essential we have that kind of 
experienced personnel to do this.
  I am very pleased we now have this way forward. It is the most 
powerful vehicle we will have seen in many years. I think the 
announcement today is going to set us on a path. If we can see those 
contract modifications going out from NASA in the next week--or a 
little more, but no more than 2 weeks from now--then we will know there 
is progress and that we are going toward the time when we will have the 
building of that rocket, that we will have the design, followed by the 
building, and then, of course, testing, and then the launch.
  I think when we saw that last flight come down this summer, so many 
people had very mixed feelings because space exploration has been a 
part of America's drive and spirit for all these years we have watched 
more and more things be accomplished. From President Kennedy's first 
challenge that we would put men on the Moon, Americans have been 
excited about that opportunity. They have not just been excited, 
though, about the exploration and the pushing of the envelope, they 
have also been excited with the quality of life that has been produced 
by what came from the research: the advancements we have had in medical 
treatment, MRIs, the advancements in products we have been able to 
discover.
  I fully expect that with the space station we are going to be able to 
do the research on cancers that will grow in the microgravity 
conditions in space that will not grow the same way on Earth, and that 
maybe we will be able to test antidotes and medicines for those. That 
is why I was pleased the President did announce we would extend the 
space station until 2020. We have international partners as well. So we 
want to make sure we are a good partner, that we are a reliable 
partner, and that we do some things for mankind that might make a 
difference in our lives.
  National security. We have gained so much in satellite-guided 
missiles for our national security. And being able to put a missile 
into a window from 1 mile out is because we have been able to discover 
in space the use of satellites. Earlier this summer the space shuttle 
carried the magnetic spectrometer that Dr. Ting, the Nobel laureate 
from MIT, built and insisted on putting on the space station, it will 
help us understand the nature of dark energy and its relationship to 
the origins and function of the universe.
  We are looking at how matter was formed. We are looking at the cosmic 
rays. I went to the Johnson Space Center in Houston and saw from the 
space station the magnetic spectrometer that was getting the hits from 
cosmic rays. There were 60 scientists in the room who were tracking 
these hits, trying to determine what was happening when those cosmic 
rays hit the magnetic spectrometer because they want to see if we can 
understand the nature of dark energy. There are things we have not even 
thought of that we hope to find by using the space station, and then 
going to an asteroid or going to the Moon.
  We have taken a first step today. I think many people in America were 
waiting for the blueprint for the future. Now I think we have one. As 
long as we stay on a regular timetable and with the funding levels that 
have been approved already in the authorization bill passed by Congress 
and signed by the President--if we can stick with those, this has the 
potential to bring us energy, health, possibly curing breast

[[Page S5613]]

cancer, things that will make a difference in the lives not only of 
Americans but of our fellow citizens all over the world. That is what 
the investment can be in NASA if we go forward as we have made this 
blueprint to do.
  We are in a time where we must be more efficient. We must fund the 
priorities and not fund the lesser priorities.
  In today's markup of our committee, our Appropriations subcommittee 
that does fund NASA, we have found the priorities. We also cut 
programs. Senator Mikulski said in her whole time in the Senate she has 
never been an appropriator who actually cut programs. But we did today. 
We cut programs that were lesser priorities in different areas of our 
jurisdiction. But we funded NASA so we would have this heavy launch 
vehicle. We would fund the commercial vehicle that is going to take our 
astronauts to the space station. That is going to be done in the 
private sector. That was the balance we did in our authorization bill 
last year. Then we fund the Webb Space Telescope because that is part 
of the scientific advances we must make if we are going to know what is 
out there in space that we might be able to utilize or utilize the 
knowledge for better life on Earth.
  I am very pleased we have the Appropriations Committee that will, 
hopefully, approve the bill tomorrow and that we have made those tough 
decisions. We came in under the 2011 continuing resolution on our 
overall bill. We came in under the President's request. But we have 
fully funded the priorities which have the possibility to reap the 
benefits from exploration and assure that America remains the No. 1 
country in the world in space exploration. Our economy has benefitted, 
our national security has benefitted, and now we are going to be 
looking at health care possibilities, energy possibilities, and living 
in space, and seeing how we can do that in a better way.
  I think we have a plan that will excite the American people again 
about what we can do in space if we put our minds to it, if we 
prioritize, if we are efficient with the taxpayer dollars, and we do 
not lose sight of the vision that is the spirit of America.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I would ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I would like to spend a few minutes 
discussing some things in general.
  In making a couple points today, I was referred to by one of our 
colleagues as a dictator. I am not offended at that; I understand the 
frustration of what is going on. But I think there are some significant 
points that the American people ought to hear about where we are and 
what we are doing.
  Quite frankly, if we look at our financial situation and we look at 
the history of the world, no country has ever recovered from the 
situation in which we find ourselves in terms of our debt-to-GDP ratio 
and our debt-to-export ratio.
  In August, before we left, we passed a piece of legislation that 
goes--a small amount--toward fixing the very real problems that are in 
front of our country in terms of spending money we don't have on things 
we don't absolutely need. But we have before us, and coming before us, 
two different pieces of legislation: One is a shell piece of 
legislation, and the assumption is the majority leader will utilize it 
to fund supplementation for disaster relief for the many areas in our 
country that need that funding. There is not a dispute that we should 
be doing that. There is a dispute about how much that should be. But 
the greatest dispute is, when we are running $1.3 trillion and $1.4 
trillion deficits, and we know we have significant waste, duplication, 
and fraud in the Federal Government, whether we ought to spend another 
$6 billion or $7 billion by borrowing or we ought to actually reduce 
spending somewhere else to pay for a much more important and proper 
need in which the Federal Government has a role. That is the real 
debate.
  I think we have worked a way to have appropriate amendments to try to 
pay for that, and we should probably go forward. There are, however, 
two other programs that are precarious in their funding: One is FAA--
and we have coming to us the 22nd temporary reauthorization--and the 
Transportation bill, which is, I believe, its sixth temporary 
reauthorization.
  Now, there are some real questions the American people ought to be 
asking about why 22 times we have temporarily reauthorized the FAA for 
a short period of time, and why now we are on our sixth temporary--or 
fifth; I may be wrong on one of those numbers but close--temporary 
reauthorization. That is because we are not prioritizing what is 
important for the country in terms of our legislative agenda. We don't 
control that, but there are some things that the American people are 
interested in that we do control.
  The highway trust fund has received a supplementation over the last 4 
years of $35 billion from the American taxpayer outside of the taxes 
they collect for that trust fund. Out of that amount of money billions 
of dollars have been spent on things other than highways and bridges.
  We now have 146,000 deficient bridges in our country, some in every 
State in the country. We have more now after the floods in the 
Northeast. We have significant problems and we have a limited amount of 
money, and what is in front of us is another short-term extension of 6 
months for the transportation funding which continues to spend money on 
items that are a low priority.
  I am not saying we couldn't spend the money on it. But when we are 
short of money, and we are borrowing money to put money into the trust 
fund, and our No. 1 priority ought to be safety and quality roads and 
bridges, to spend significant funds on things that are not a priority 
now--not when we are head over heels in debt, not when the trust fund 
is precarious--then we ought to not force States to spend money they 
don't want to spend. Yet in this bill 10 percent of the surface 
transportation moneys have to be spent on enhancement.
  So that tells Oklahoma, or any other State: If you have an excess 
number of bridges, it doesn't matter that that is a safety problem for 
your citizens; we are still going to make you spend this 10 percent 
money over here that doesn't have anything to do with safety or true 
transportation, but we are going to require it because we can--except, 
the problem is, the people in your State pay the taxes in the first 
place for their highways and their bridges, not for the museums, not 
for all the hundreds of other things that are spent that are low 
priority.
  So I thought I might give us a little flavor of what some of those 
things are. If we were at a different time where we had an excess of 
funds, I am not saying they are necessarily bad. But when we have 
bridges falling down in this country, and concrete--like the summer 
before last in Oklahoma--falling out of an interstate highway bridge 
injuring somebody, falling onto their car as they drove under it, I 
would think that we would want to repair these 146,000 bridges rather 
than spend money redecorating a sign.
  So I will not go through all of them--I will put all of them into the 
Record--but let me go through a few of them just to see. If the 
American people actually believe we should not fix bridges or roads and 
we ought to spend money, I am fine. If the Senate believes we ought to 
not fix bridges, we ought not concentrate on safety, we ought not 
concentrate on the quality of our roads and bridges and they vote it 
down, I am fine too. But the fact is, we ought not to be spending money 
when we have the hundreds of thousands of bridges that are dangerous to 
people in this country.
  All we are saying is, if a State wants to continue to spend money on 
something other than safety and bridges and roads, fine, it can, but 
don't make those of us who already have a big problem with safety have 
to spend money on something that doesn't protect our citizens, doesn't 
enhance their highways by spending money on something that is called an 
enhancement but doesn't enhance their safety or their ability to 
commute.
  So what are some of them? Lincoln Highway 200-Mile Roadside Museum in

[[Page S5614]]

Pennsylvania--it received $300,000 in enhancement funding to 
commemorate the historic highway along the 200-mile route. Interpretive 
signage, colorful, repainted vintage gas pumps, engaging murals, 
refurbishing a large coffee pot.
  Notably, Pennsylvania ranks No. 1 in the country in terms of bridge 
deficiency levels. Forty-six percent of the bridges in Pennsylvania are 
either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Mr. President, 
$300,000 would have fixed two of them. So we chose to not fix two but 
spend the money elsewhere. At a different time, sure, or if 
Pennsylvania wants to spend it, let them. But don't force them to spend 
money on something that does not protect the quality of transportation 
for their citizens.

  How about Chinatown Gateway, a $250,000 enhancement to supplement the 
construction of the Twin Dragons Gateway to the Chinatown area? 
California has over 7,000 bridges that are structurally deficient or 
functionally obsolete. One out of every three bridges in California is 
in trouble, and we are doing aesthetics instead of fixing bridges.
  How about the White Squirrel Sanctuary in Tennessee? Kenton, TN, 
located in Gibson County, calls itself ``the Home of the White 
Squirrel.'' They received $110,000 in transportation enhancement 
funding to construct a white squirrel sanctuary with walking trails, 
brick crosswalks, a footbridge, and a parking lot. There are 3,856 
bridges that are structurally deficient in the State of Tennessee. They 
didn't necessarily want to do this. They did not have any choice. They 
had to spend 10 percent of their surface transportation money on things 
such as this.
  Tuscumbia Landing in Sheffield, AL--$104,000 to investigate Tuscumbia 
Landing's archaeological features. The only problem is, 23 percent of 
Alabama's bridges are structurally deficient. That could have fixed two 
of them.
  How about the National Corvette Museum Simulator Theater in Warren 
County, KY--$200,000 to build a grand simulator theater. Mr. President, 
31 percent of the bridges they cross in Kentucky are structurally 
deficient or functionally obsolete.
  The Pennsylvania Trolley Museum--$400,000 to construct the 
Pennsylvania Trolley Museum. It is a great idea if we are in the black 
and have a good cashflow. But when Pennsylvania leads the Nation in 
deficient bridges and dangerous bridges, why would we spend that money? 
Why would we force them to spend that money?
  I can go on. I will add to the record many other examples, all the 
way up to 40 separate examples of where we are spending money but we 
are not fixing bridges.
  I ask unanimous consent that those examples be printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. COBURN. We are not pouring asphalt, we are not laying concrete, 
we are not decreasing congestion, and we are not increasing safety. 
What we are doing is we are following the rules of Washington when we 
have greater needs. We are in trouble as a nation because Congress does 
not set priorities, and when they do set priorities, there is no 
connection to the reality of our financial situation.
  We have some options on how to go forward. One of the options would 
be to take the FAA bill, split it out, approve it, send it back to the 
House, and FAA is taken care of. The second option would be to pass the 
highway extension for 6 months with the elimination of enhancements and 
send it back to the House. But I will not give a unanimous consent, as 
is my right as a Senator of the United States, for us to continue to 
spend billions of dollars on things that are not a priority when the 
country is struggling to survive. Its very survival depends on us 
changing the way we do business. If that means the highway 
transportation bill does not get approved, so be it. But there has to 
be a point in time in this country when we change direction and we 
start meeting the obligations that are put before us.
  The No. 1 obligation is to start spending money where it does the 
most good and quit spending money we do not have on things we do not 
absolutely need. With a 35-percent deficit--and we are going to run 
another $1.3 trillion deficit next year, which will cost a significant 
amount of funds for our kids and our grandkids just to repay what we 
are going to waste next year--there ought to be a time at which we say 
enough is enough.
  I know there will be several, including my own senior Senator, who 
will be unhappy with my position, but I believe it is time to draw a 
line in the sand for the American people, for our future. It is not 
popular. It is certainly not expedient. But it is absolutely the right 
thing to do.
  If the Senate wants to solve the problem of these two bills, we can 
split them or we can keep them together, but we need to end the 
enhancements right now until we get the highway trust fund healthy 
again, No. 1, and, No. 2, until we get our country healthy again. When 
we do, I will be happy to defer.
  Remember, we are not saying you cannot do it. We are just saying you 
ought to have the option to not do it.

                               Exhibit 1

       Kalanianaole Highway, Ka'lwi Scenic Shoreline Trail--
     Federal Transportation enhancement funds were used to 
     intervene in a local land use dispute in Hawaii. A decades 
     long dispute over the preservation of Hawaiian shoreline 
     versus local developmental interests was assisted by the 
     Department of Transportation, which used $11 million in 
     enhancement funds to acquire land for conservation purposes, 
     effectively meddling in the local land use. In the mean time, 
     45 percent of Hawaii's bridges are either structurally 
     deficient or functionally obsolete.
       Antique bike collections--The University of California 
     Davis received a transportation enhancement grant of $440,000 
     to purchase 60 unique antique bikes for its Bicycle Museum 
     Collection.
       Shrine to Tennessee state history costs federal government 
     $23 million-- Nashville, Tennessee received $23 million in 
     federal enhancement funding to construct its bicentennial ode 
     to Tennessee state history. The project included the building 
     of ``a 1,400-foot Wall of History etched with historic events 
     from the state's first two centuries, 31 fountains that each 
     represent one of the state's rivers, and a 200-foot granite 
     state map.'' The only thing more egregious than federal funds 
     used for a clearly state interest, is that 20 percent of 
     Tennessee Bridges are either structurally deficient or 
     functionally obsolete.
       ARTwalk--ARTwalk is tagged as a unique outdoor experience 
     that constructs pathways between shopping areas, galleries, 
     and museums in Rochester, Vermont. The project used $234,000 
     in federal enhancement dollars to build the artsy outdoor 
     museum, while 861 of Vermont's bridges remain either 
     structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
       Old Roman Bath House Renovation--$160,000 worth of 
     enhancement funding was used in Berkeley, West Virginia for 
     the renovation of the oldest building in town, an Old Roman 
     Bath House. While local residents may be interested in 
     visiting a bath house where George Washington used to 
     frequent, federal taxpayers may find the connection to 
     critical infrastructure more puzzling. Moreover, 36 percent 
     of West Virginia's bridges remain structurally deficient or 
     functionally obsolete.
       Saddletree Factory Renovation--The Ben Schroeder Saddle 
     Tree Factory, a historical factory in Madison, Indiana, 
     received transportation enhancement funding for historical 
     preservation purposes because the factory used to make 
     Saddletrees, the foundation of a saddle. 21.5 percent of 
     Indiana's bridges are either structurally deficient or 
     functionally obsolete.
       Toledo Harbor Lighthouse--The Toledo Harbor Lighthouse in 
     Toledo, Ohio, protected by the ``phantom'' officer Frank, 
     will receive a $500,000 enhancement grant to restore windows, 
     doors, bricks, and shutters. This grant will not only help to 
     restore the facade of the historical lighthouse, but also 
     carry on the legendary ghosts of the haunted lighthouse. 
     Unfortunately, ``phantom'' officer Frank will not be able to 
     protect Ohio drivers from the 6,598 bridges that are either 
     structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
       Critter Crossing--The Monkton, Vermont Conservation 
     Commission received $150,000 in federal grant money to build 
     a--critter crossing, to save the lives of thousands of 
     migrating salamanders and other amphibians that would 
     otherwise be slaughtered by vehicle traffic on a major 
     roadway. Thousands of blue- and yellow-spotted salamanders, 
     frogs, and other amphibians spend the winter months in the 
     rocky uplands near Monkton, but must return to low-lying 
     wetlands in order to reproduce. To travel between these two 
     areas, the salamanders must cross the heavily-traveled 
     Monkton-Vergennes Road. While some conservationists have 
     celebrated the project, others remain skeptical. ``I 
     certainly respect all species. However, I don't see the need 
     to pay $150,000 for a salamander crossing'', read one email 
     reportedly sent to the Burlington [Vermont] Free Press 
     newspaper. ``I realize there are a lot of other stupid things 
     my tax dollars go toward, but this one is near the top of the 
     list.'' Maybe the local communities will prevent the critters 
     from crossing one of the 861 bridges that are either 
     structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

[[Page S5615]]

       North Carolina Transportation Museum Spencer, North 
     Carolina--The North Carolina Transportation Museum has 
     received over 11 million to renovate and showcase steam 
     locomotive artifacts. As of 2010, North Carolina has nearly 
     5000 bridges that are either structurally deficient or 
     functionally obsolete.
       Massachusetts bike and pedestrian allotted millions, but 
     remain unspent--Massachusetts has received $135 million in 
     federal funds for bike and pedestrian projects since 1991, of 
     which it has spent little more than $51 million, according to 
     The Boston Globe. That means nearly two-thirds of the funds 
     provided in the last two decades by Congress to the state for 
     such projects remain unspent. Perhaps Massachusetts would 
     like to use their unspent funds to work on their 2,548 
     bridges that are either structurally deficient or 
     functionally obsolete.
       Nevada spending millions of federal transportation dollars 
     to make Vegas highways beautiful--In 2008, Nevada received 
     its transportation enhancement allotment of $6,287,466. They 
     decided to spend it in a variety of ways, a few million went 
     to biking facilities and trails, a few million went to 
     welcome centers and interpretive centers. $498,750 even went 
     for ``decorative rocks, native plants, some pavement 
     graphics, a few walls, and some great big granite boulders'' 
     to beautify an interchange to Las Vegas' 215 Beltway.
       A couple miles down the highway, N-DOT beautified another 
     interchange with ``striping in the rocks and some native 
     plants.'' That project has cost $319,163 so far this year.
       The people of Nevada might have been able to think of some 
     better things to spend that money on. One local who uses the 
     interchange frequently was not impressed by the expensive 
     beautification project. ``I'm busy watching where I'm going. 
     I'm not looking at landscape improvements and stamped 
     concrete.''
       Unfortunately, there is little that local officials can do 
     to re-direct the money to better uses. ``We applied for the 
     federal enhancement dollars and those federal enhancement 
     dollars can only be used for landscaping and pedestrian type 
     improvements,'' explains the top civil engineer at the Clark 
     County Public Works Traffic Management Division.
       The N-DOT deputy director for southern Nevada is just as 
     frustrated as many citizens that federal restrictions 
     prohibit states from directing money where it is really 
     needed. ``It's really getting out of hand to where these pots 
     of money have these constraints associated with them and you 
     can't spend money where you want to.'' These restrictions 
     sometimes leave states no choice but to spend money on 
     frivolous projects or lose it entirely. The deputy director 
     notes, ``if N-DOT doesn't spend that money and employ workers 
     in Nevada, another state is gonna have that money up for 
     grabs.''
       Washington, DC receives Transportation Enhancement grants 
     for murals and valet bikes--Washington, DC received nearly $2 
     million in transportation enhancement grants in Fiscal Year 
     2010, ranging from $50,000 to $579,000. These grants include 
     items such as the stabilization of historic murals and a 
     grant for bicycle parking and valet services, along with the 
     creation of a ``Room to Breathe'' poster. The $2 million 
     allotment would be much better used for bridge repair, as 158 
     of the 244 bridges in the District are either structurally 
     deficient or functionally obsolete.
       Railroad Caboose Relocation and Renovation--The Princeton 
     Railroad Museum received a $78,280 transportation enhancement 
     grant to help pay for the relocation of a historic train 
     caboose to be displayed and restored.
       Texas Highway Rest Stops--The Texas Department of 
     Transportation uses a substantial amount of their required 
     transportation enhancement spending to build highway rest 
     areas. Texas plans to spend $262 million to build or overhaul 
     roadside stops along its highways, with a majority of the 
     funds coming from enhancement grants. However, some residents 
     question the construction of rest stops in such close 
     proximity to other commercial areas, leading one local 
     resident to surmise about the $10 million Salado rest area, 
     ``I think $10 million would have made a nice third lane in a 
     lot of spots . . . It's pretty spectacular for a rest area, 
     for, I guess, $2 million worth . . . $10 million? That's a 
     lot of money.'' Additionally, the Texas Department of 
     Transportation spent $16.2 million in enhancement funding on 
     a Battleship Texas restoration project.
       California Sculpture Competition--Federal transportation 
     enhancement dollars were used as prize money for an art 
     competition to find a sculpture fitting to place in a parking 
     lot for a Laguna Beach, California Friday Film Series event.
       Merchant and Drovers Tavern Museum--The Merchants and 
     Drovers Tavern Museum in Union County, New Jersey received a 
     $210,790 transportation enhancement grant to create a museum 
     on the second floor of the recently renovated building. The 
     Merchants and Drovers Tavern Museum touts its amenities by 
     letting visitors ``experience the hospitality of the 1820s'' 
     and ``quench his thirst in the taproom, sit for a while in 
     the parlor or, perhaps, try a bed for size at this `hands-on' 
     museum.'' Meanwhile, visitors should also be wary of driving 
     over any New Jersey bridges on the way to the museum, as 35 
     percent of them are either structurally deficient or 
     functionally obsolete.
       Museum uses transportation funds for its Heating and Air 
     Conditioning system--The Sayre Historical Society Museum in 
     Bradford County, Pennsylvania received a transportation 
     enhancement grant of $74,704 for the ``Sayre Historical 
     Society RR Museum Heating and AC project.'' You read that 
     correctly, American gas taxes are being directed towards 
     heating and air installation.
       War of 1812, Bladensburg, Maryland excavation--Enhancement 
     funding was used to excavate several historical buildings in 
     Bladensburg, Maryland to study the ``transportation history'' 
     of the area. Bladensburg was used for troop movements during 
     the War of 1812, as well as being a transportation hub during 
     early America.
       Funding for a Transportation Exhibit--$300,000 in federal 
     money will pay for a new exhibit on the history of 
     transportation at a local museum in Missouri. The fresh 
     display at the St. Charles County Heritage museum will 
     explain the influence of rivers, railroads, roads, and trails 
     in the region over the years. The grant application 
     highlights how ``The County and its residents have had to 
     rely on multiple forms of transportation and as technology 
     changed, the area had to adapt to the changing transportation 
     methods/patterns.''
       Not everyone in the community agrees the federal government 
     should fund this type of project. A county executive said, 
     ``It's the kind of thing the federal government can't afford 
     to do.'' Other officials however have a different perspective 
     on the federal funding. The county parks director explained 
     how ``the $300,000 grant is `a pretty insignificant amount of 
     money compared to that total pool' of federal transportation 
     spending.'' Maybe a more significant number should be 7,021, 
     the number of Missouri bridges that are either structurally 
     deficient or functionally obsolete.
       Iowa town receives new entrance sign--Fairfield, Iowa used 
     $40,800 in transportation enhancement funds to upgrade its 
     ``Welcome to Fairfield'' sign. It is likely that Iowans would 
     welcome their transportation funds upgrading their bridges, 
     as Iowa ranks 3rd in bridge deficiency rates in America.
       Michigan Receives Transportation funds to plant flowers and 
     rehabilitate an engine house--In 2010, the Michigan awarded 
     $5 million in federal transportation enhancement grants to 
     various projects including reconstructing cobblestone roads, 
     purchasing and installing bicycle racks, and 
     ``streetscaping'' a downtown street in Bridgetown, Michigan 
     with ``decorative sidewalk treatments, street trees, 
     perennial flowers and other decorative plantings, planters, 
     and ornamental street lighting.'' One grant awarded $336,490 
     to rehabilitate the historic Quincy and Torch Lake Railroad 
     Engine House while another grant awarded $1,490,280 to the 
     Detroit Science Center to construct an exhibit depicting 
     ``how roads, tunnels and bridges are constructed.''
       Transportation Funding used to replace unaesthetic fencing 
     around Oklahoma Capitol Oil Derricks--The Oklahoma Department 
     of Central Services, the controller of Capitol Grounds, 
     received $216,000 in transportation enhancement funding to 
     replace fencing around active oil wells on Lincoln Boulevard 
     with a more aesthetically pleasing form of fencing. 
     Unfortunately while Capitol Complex may look better, Oklahoma 
     bridge deficiency rates remain 2nd in the United States.
       Over $150,000 in Gasoline Taxes directed towards making 
     brochures--Over the last 10 years, federal transportation 
     enhancement grants have been used to produce brochures for 
     various purposes including monuments paths, scenic trails, 
     and bicycle safety. The State of Kansas even received a 
     federal grant to install and replace their brochure display 
     cases at SRA.
       Enhancement funds used to help construct replica of 
     historical schooner--In 2001, Burlington, Vermont received a 
     $20,000 grant to subsidize the building a full scale replica 
     of the 1862-class sailing canal boat, the Louis McClure.
       Crandall Farm Restoration project--Washington County, Rhode 
     Island received a $120,000 transportation enhancement grant 
     for renovation of Crandall Farm. The project consisted of 
     renovating the 1870 house on the farm into a welcome center 
     and educational tool for the traveling public.
       South Carolina uses gas taxes to purchase $15,000 ``Welcome 
     Signs''--Orangeburg County, South Carolina received a $34,965 
     transportation enhancement grant o help purchase three signs 
     at a cost of $44,500, or $14,833 per sign. Unfortunately, 
     South Carolina bridges are not as welcoming, as 22 percent of 
     them are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
       The State of Michigan receives nearly $100,000 to celebrate 
     mysterious centennial--In 2004, Michigan received a $99,540 
     transportation enhancement grant for publications, historical 
     commemorative items, and displays for a ``centennial 
     celebration.'' The only thing more puzzling than how these 
     activities are related to transportation is that the 
     centennial for Michigan Statehood occurred in 1937.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, today I rise to offer my support for 
the President's request for immediate supplemental assistance for the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. This funding will enable FEMA to 
continue to provide critical aid to victims left in the wake of Irene's 
deadly

[[Page S5616]]

path, and victims of other natural disasters that have struck 
throughout the country.
  My home State of Rhode Island has experienced two major disasters in 
the last couple of years, so I know firsthand how hard homeowners, 
businesses, and municipalities have struggled to recover, even with 
Federal assistance programs.
  This is not the time to play politics. If Congress fails to provide 
this emergency funding between now and September 30, we run the risk of 
completely running out of disaster funds. Our fellow Americans need 
this funding to recover from catastrophic disasters. Mother Nature does 
not distinguish between blue and reds States, and both Democratic and 
Republican Governors--and in Rhode Island's case an Independent 
Governor--have asked for immediate disaster aid.
  This supplemental funding will help replenish FEMA's Disaster Relief 
Fund, which pays for Federal disaster response and recovery activities. 
The fund has been running dangerously low as a result of the 
devastating tornado in Missouri, tornados in Alabama, major flooding in 
the Midwest and South, wildfires in Texas, and the historic flooding 
caused by Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee.
  This year's disasters have been particularly destructive and I urge 
my colleagues to remain committed to all the victims as they struggle 
to become whole again. We should approve this disaster aid to ensure 
that communities aren't left in ruins.
  The shortfall in funding has already forced the administration to put 
certain disaster recovery activities on hold. My State, like many 
others, sustained a federally declared disaster last month as a result 
of Hurricane and Tropical Storm Irene. In order for FEMA to ensure it 
had the resources to provide immediate relief for new disasters such as 
Hurricane Irene, the agency had to freeze long-term recovery and 
mitigation projects.
  This funding conundrum really hits home because in Rhode Island 
communities are still reeling from the historic flooding that occurred 
in the spring of 2010. Rhode Island saw more rain during that disaster 
than any month on record, and the devastation wrought by those storms 
exceeded anything in living memory.
  I was on the ground during the flooding last year and have been 
intimately involved in the recovery process. I know how important 
FEMA's long-term recovery and mitigation programs are for revitalizing 
damaged communities, especially in States like mine that were already 
hurting from the difficult economic environment.
  I urge my colleagues across the aisle to let us pass this critical 
legislation to provide supplemental funding for FEMA. Not only will it 
go a long way toward providing peace of mind should another disaster 
strike, it will also ensure that communities across the country that 
are still recovering from past disasters can continue to move forward 
in their recovery. This will make us a stronger and more resilient 
nation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, Nelson Mandela once said, ``There is no 
easy walk to freedom anywhere.''
  The walk to freedom for the Burmese people has certainly not been 
easy, and it is far from complete.
  The military-controlled government that rules Burma continues to 
maintain its tight grip over the Burmese people through fear, 
intimidation, and violence.
  According to the State Department, over the last year the Burmese 
regime has ``severely restricted and frequently violated freedoms of 
assembly, expression, association, movement, and religion.''
  And in furthering its hold over Burmese society, the regime has 
committed crimes of murder, abduction, rape, torture, recruitment of 
child soldiers, and forced labor--all with impunity.
  In recent months however, we have seen some encouraging steps.
  Last November, the Burmese regime released Aung San Suu Kyi, the 
Burmese democracy leader and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, after a 
long and unjustified incarceration. And the regime has made some modest 
movement towards dialogue with the opposition.
  But it is far too soon to think that the walk to freedom has 
succeeded. Just 2 months after releasing Aung San Suu Kyi, the regime 
dissolved the National League for Democracy, which has sought to bring 
democracy to Burma for more than 20 years.
  And the regime keeps more than 2,000 political prisoners in 
detention.
  As Aung San Suu Kyi herself has said, ``If my people are not free, 
how can you say I'm free? We are none of us free.''
  In order to help the Burmese people on their march to freedom, I urge 
my colleagues to extend our sanctions against Burmese imports for 
another year.
  Several of our trading partners--including the European Union, 
Canada, and Australia--have joined us in imposing trade and investment 
sanctions against Burma. And these sanctions have put significant 
pressure on the Burmese leadership.
  So let us extend the import sanctions on Burma for another year. Let 
us do our part to help the Burmese people complete their long walk to 
freedom.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I would ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________