[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 143 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5924-S5929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             AMERICAN JOBS

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few moments about 
what has been happening all week here in the Senate and in the House of 
Representatives.
  First of all, this year we have seen a terrible string of natural 
disasters that have shut down businesses and left families homeless 
across America. As chair of the Agriculture Committee, I am certainly 
very concerned about the flooding along the Mississippi and Missouri 
Rivers, and the record droughts that have devastated the livelihoods of 
men and women who grow our food across America.
  In response to that, the Senate, on a strong bipartisan basis, 
responded to provide the funding for FEMA to help with communities 
across America, 48 States, to be able to respond and be able to do what 
we always do as Americans--to be able to step forward and work together 
and meet these kinds of natural disasters and the help that is needed.
  We sent that to the House. The House decided, on the other hand, that 
they not only would lower the funding amount, even though we know that 
means multiple times now having to keep churning to work something out, 
but they have cut the amount. Then they added to it an effort to cut in 
half a public-private sector effort that is creating jobs.
  I know people in Michigan and people across the country would be 
scratching their heads, saying, Wait a minute. Did I hear this right? 
We are stepping forward to help families who had their house wiped out 
or their business wiped out or their farm wiped out or some other 
horrendous challenge because of natural disasters. In order to help 
them, the House Republicans are saying we have to cut jobs. That makes 
absolutely no sense.
  I would say that while Michigan was very fortunate that we were not 
one of the 48 States that has lost, because of weather disasters, homes 
or businesses or jobs or families, we have had a different kind of 
disaster that has been going on. It is an economic disaster, it is a 
jobs disaster.
  I find it appalling that, on the one hand, we see strong support on 
the other side of the aisle to rebuild homes and businesses and roads 
and schools in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are not saying there, well, 
gosh, we need to take away an effort to fund jobs or education here at 
home to be able to fund what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. But 
when it comes to helping people in America, somehow we can't work 
together and get that done without having to pit one State which has a 
jobs crisis against another State which has a flood or a hurricane or a 
drought. I don't find that to be very American.
  I think it is time to stop playing politics. When hundreds of 
thousands of families and businesses have been devastated by 
unprecedented strings of floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, and 
other natural disasters, we ought to be stepping up, doing what we did 
in the Senate and passing a bipartisan bill to help those families, 
those businesses, those farms, without playing

[[Page S5925]]

politics and trying to hurt other States that have been hit by other 
kinds of economic disasters.
  We have 14 million people out of work in this country, and that 
doesn't count people working part time two jobs, three jobs, or trying 
to piece it all together in some way. We know it is much higher than 
that when you count those individuals and families. For each and every 
one of them, their job search is an emergency. It is an emergency every 
time they think about how to put food on the table for their family. It 
is an emergency every month when they have to scrape together the money 
they need for rent or to pay the mortgage. It is an emergency every 
time these men and women are filling out applications, every day going 
to job fairs, going on the Internet, trying to fill out forms, getting 
in lines, to find the best way to be able to get back to work. It is an 
emergency.
  So, to me, it is outrageous that the House of Representatives--the 
Republicans in the House--has included a job-killing offset to what is 
an important disaster assistance bill, to pull the rug out from 
businesses across the country and put up to 50,000 American jobs at 
risk.
  Let me tell you about what this particular program is. I am proud to 
have championed this and initiated it in the Energy bill back in 2007, 
a bipartisan bill signed by President Bush. It was slow to get going 
initially to get the funding. I am proud that President Obama embraced 
it and moved forward to be able to put in place an alternative vehicle 
manufacturing loan program to help retool plants in America so we 
wouldn't be losing the production of new, small plug-in electric 
vehicles and other new technology vehicles to other countries. It is a 
loan program to retool plants in America, and it is working.
  In Michigan, these retooling loans made it possible for Ford Motor 
Company to save 1,900 jobs at their Michigan assembly plant in Wayne, 
MI, so they could build the all-new Ford Focus electric and the 
battery-electric Focus in America. In the process of that, between the 
retooling loans and our partnership with industry to invest in advanced 
battery technology, we are now bringing jobs back from Mexico.
  How many times have I heard colleagues on the floor talking about how 
we want to make sure we are exporting products, not jobs, and that we 
want to bring jobs back? What the House Republicans have done is to cut 
in half an initiative with the private sector that is actually bringing 
jobs back from other countries. So far, 41,000 jobs have been saved or 
created through this effort around the country. Obviously, I care 
deeply about Michigan and have fought for this, but we are talking 
about Indiana, Illinois; we are talking about Florida and Louisiana and 
California, and all across our country where we are seeing communities 
have the opportunity to retool plants that would be idle, empty, an 
eyesore, and be able to bring those back with new technologies that are 
going to get us off of foreign oil and are creating jobs--41,000 jobs 
so far.
  The real insult to me, as I look at what is happening to people in my 
State and across the country, is that they are poised to be giving out 
up to 11 additional loans to partner with business in the next couple 
of months that will create somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 new 
jobs, saving or creating new jobs in the next few weeks. And right when 
this is about to happen, the House Republicans are saying: Oh, no, in 
order to help the folks in Joplin, MO, who are wiped out as a 
community, we want to make sure we are not creating jobs in Michigan; 
that we are not creating jobs in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, 
Louisiana, California, Minnesota, wherever it is; that somehow we have 
to pit Americans against each other. That is not the America I know and 
love.
  In Michigan we don't have a weather emergency. But we stand with 
every single State on this floor, every single Member who has had one. 
We stand as Americans together to support people across this country. 
But we say, Stop, when that means that somehow an effort to make things 
in America, manufacturing, the backbone of our economy, is somehow 
attacked one more time and partnerships taken away in order to make 
that happen.
  It makes absolutely no sense. That is what this debate is about. I 
wish to share some comments because we received a lot of support. I 
wish to share a couple comments, if I might, on the floor.
  The National Association of Manufacturers has sent a letter opposing 
the defunding of this particular partnership and they say: ``Defunding 
the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program will hurt 
manufacturers and their employees.''
  Everybody is spending a whole lot of time talking about jobs around 
here. Unbelievably, we are talking about defunding this program in the 
middle of talking about jobs, how we need to create jobs, how we need 
to support employers, and how we can compete internationally with 
countries such as China that say: Come on over. We will build the plant 
for you. Forget a loan you are going to pay back with interest; we will 
just build it for you. Come on over, and, by the way, we will steal 
your patents and manipulate our currency and make sure you get the 
toughest deal possible to compete with us. But that is what they do.
  So we put together something to say we are going to partner with the 
private sector to be able to keep the jobs in America and it is 
actually working. Jobs are coming back. We are rebuilding communities. 
We are rebuilding plants. We are helping to get off foreign oil because 
we are focused on new electric vehicles and an advanced battery 
technology industry where, because of our efforts, from producing 2 
percent of the world's batteries, we are on our way to producing 40 
percent, having the capacity to manufacture and create 40 percent of 
the world's batteries within the next 3 years. Why? Because we have 
been working together in partnerships with industry, which is what our 
industry is competing against around the world.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said: ``The ATVM loan program . . . 
promotes manufacturing in the U.S. and is an important component of 
America's energy security.''
  We all want to get off foreign oil. We do not want to be buying oil 
from folks we do not like and they don't like us and we can't trust 
them. We have an opportunity, through the efforts we are focused on 
around alternative vehicles and battery initiatives, to get off foreign 
oil.
  This makes absolutely no sense to me. We have multiple other 
letters--the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, the Blue/Green 
Alliance--we have others who have come back and shared that as well.
  We are at a moment when we know we need to pass a continuing 
resolution on the regular budget. We have a new process for a 
supercommittee to look at how we take on and tackle the issues around 
our national debt and economic growth. During the process that set that 
up, there was an agreement on the budget numbers. We have the ability 
to pass that now. We have passed a bill to help our citizens across the 
country who have had weather disasters, natural disasters. We came 
together in the Senate to do that. The House has that.
  There is one thing standing in the way: whether at this time we are 
going to say to people in Michigan and in other States where the 
economic disaster has been overwhelming that we are going to pit their 
need for jobs against somebody else's need to have their home or their 
street or their school rebuilt.
  That is not who we are in America. I do not believe Americans support 
that strategy. I think it is outrageous that there is a proposal that 
passed. I thank my House Democratic colleagues and my House colleagues 
in Michigan and the Democratic leadership in the House for waging a 
fierce battle to protect those jobs.
  This is about making products in America. It is about rejuvenating an 
advanced manufacturing sector that is critical. We are not going to 
have a middle class if we do not make products in America. We are not 
going to have a middle class. This particular partnership, which is 
nothing more than a loan, repaid with interest, but it is support for 
our communities to rebuild--rebuild not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq but 
in America; rebuild communities and create jobs. It is working. It is 
beginning to bring jobs back. It is outrageous that they have decided 
to take half the funding for this partnership away.

[[Page S5926]]

  I wish to support our effort to send over the continuing resolution 
on the budget we need. I thank my caucus and our leadership for 
standing firm and standing up for American jobs. That is what we care 
about. That is what we have been fighting for. Along the way, we are 
going to make sure we are doing everything we can to help citizens who 
have been so devastated by the natural disasters across the country.
  I suggest the absence of quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor and will spend the 
next 15 minutes or so, maybe even longer, to support the arguments made 
just recently, and I might say eloquently and passionately, by the 
Senator from Michigan, who was one of the key architects of this very 
successful job creation program that the Republican House leadership is 
trying to kill. That is, in large measure, what this debate this 
weekend and through next week is about. That is why almost unanimously 
Democrats in the Senate are supporting our Democratic caucus in the 
House as we try to bring this debate forward so the American people can 
understand at this time and hopefully give their voice of support for 
what we are trying to do--keep government operating and keep jobs being 
created in this country.
  It is a struggle. We know we are not creating as many as we would 
like. But one of the programs that is creating thousands of jobs and 
has broad support in America--and I am going to read the groups 
supporting it in just a minute. For some reason, the Republican leader 
in the House, Eric Cantor, decided last week--even as the winds were 
affecting his district and Hurricane Irene was challenging the east 
coast, a portion of the country he represents--he decided we needed to 
find an offset so we could send money to his district and to other 
districts across the country and picked this program.
  They couldn't have picked a worse one because this program is 
actually working. It has already demonstrated it has revitalized 
communities.
  In addition, it is a program that created jobs, so several dozen 
Republican House Members have sent private letters to the Secretary of 
Energy asking for the money to go back to their districts, but publicly 
they want to gut the program. Democrats have decided to bring this to 
the attention of the American public. I have those letters, and I am 
going to submit them for the Record.
  How is it that dozens of Republican leaders wrote private letters--
which are a public record--but they do not issue them to the press. 
They sent them to the Secretary. Anyone can get copies of them. I did 
this morning and I have them. They are private letters to the 
Secretary, asking for this program to loan money to a public-private 
partnership to create jobs in their district. Then they go home and 
they talk about their efforts to create jobs and they come back to 
Washington and try to gut the program under the guise that they need 
the money to help disaster victims. That is what this debate is about. 
That is why the Democrats are not--at least at this point, and I hope 
over the weekend and through next week--going to give in to that 
nonsense and hypocrisy.
  I hope the President and the White House will fight hard, along with 
the Democrats. I hope some of the Republicans who have signed these 
letters will think twice when this vote comes up again. I hope the 
press is reading these letters and asking these Republicans, whose 
signatures are on these letters, one question: How is it possible that 
they sent a letter to the Secretary asking for a loan to support job 
creation in their district and then, at the same time, stand on the 
Senate floor and vote to gut the same program and then go back home and 
claim they are helping to create jobs in America?
  I am going to start with the first letter, which is the most 
interesting to me. It is from Dr. Darrell Issa. He is a Member of 
Congress. He actually chairs an oversight committee. I think his 
district is in California. He is a Republican from California. He is a 
very powerful Member of the House. I am going to read his whole letter.

       I write to express my support for Aptera Motors' 
     application for a loan under the Department of Energy's 136 
     Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program. 
     Otherwise known as the ATVMIP.

  The program he voted last night to eliminate. The same one.

       Funding will allow Aptera to establish U.S. manufacturing 
     facilities for the commercial production of its plug-in and 
     hybrid electric cars. Aptera Motors plans to purchase and 
     equip manufacturing facilities to begin commercial-scale 
     production of its energy electric vehicles. Awarding this 
     opportunity to Aptera Motors will greatly assist a leading 
     developer of electric vehicles in my district.
       Electric vehicle initiatives, like Aptera's, will aid U.S. 
     long-term energy goals by shifting away from fossil fuels and 
     using viable renewable energy sources like plug-in electric 
     energy. Additionally, Aptera's vehicles will reduce 
     dependence on foreign oil and enhance energy security. 
     Aptera's project will also promote domestic job creation 
     through California as well as in other States.
       Unlike many other electric vehicles, Aptera's energy 
     efficient electric vehicles have a range of over 100 miles 
     per charge and the possibility to become one of the most 
     energy efficient vehicles in the world. A loan to Aptera will 
     help accelerate the move from gasoline-powered vehicles to 
     cleaner electric vehicles.
       I urge you to give Aptera's Advanced Technology Vehicles 
     Manufacturing Incentive Program funding application full 
     consideration.
       If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate 
     to contact me--

or amazingly--

     my press assistant.

  Normally, when I write these letters, I say if I can be of further 
assistance, please contact me and my energy assistant. The energy leg 
person usually handles this. But in this case he said we should call 
his press secretary. I guess the press secretary could go back to his 
district and claim he is doing a great job creating programs in 
California.
  Maybe the press actually writes that Darryl Issa, Republican leader, 
is promoting manufacturing in California. This is what he says in his 
district, and this is the letter he sends to the Secretary. However, 
when he was on the floor of the House last night, he voted to gut this 
program. That is what this debate is about. I am looking forward to 
having it.
  The next letter I am going to read--and I am going to do this all 
week, so I hope the press gets ready to ask these Republican leaders 
how they could possibly have the gall to hold press opportunities in 
their districts promising people they are helping them create jobs and 
then come back to Washington and cut the rug out from underneath their 
feet with the bogus excuse that they have to come up with $1 billion, 
when the real need is only $175 million. I checked with Craig Fugate, a 
very good friend of mine. I am the chair of his committee. I talk to 
him all the time. When the real need for FEMA in 2011 is $175 million, 
but under the guise of having to provide $1 billion, they want to gut 
this program that is creating jobs, and they themselves have asked for 
these loans to be made in their district.
  This is the next letter signed by several Members, and I am going to 
submit their names for the Record. There are several Republicans. I am 
sorry, but from this letter I am not able to determine which ones are 
Republicans and which ones are Democrats.
  I ask unanimous consent that theses letters be printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1)
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you. This is to Secretary Chu.

       The State of California has traditionally assumed a leading 
     role in fighting global warming and working to eliminate our 
     dependence on foreign sources of oil. We want to commend you 
     for also taking effective steps towards achieving these 
     goals. As part of this effort, the Department of Energy's 
     Electric Drive and Vehicle Battery and Component 
     Manufacturing Initiative is currently reviewing submissions 
     for the construction of new lithium ion battery facilities in 
     the United States. This initiative is a huge step forward in 
     our efforts to improve our environment, eliminate our 
     dependence on foreign sources of oil, and create a modern 
     green-collar workforce here in the United States.
       Quallion, an innovative American company located in 
     California, can be a valuable partner in your efforts because 
     it is ready today to directly support President Obama's

[[Page S5927]]

     goal to have one million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 
     2015. Quallion is a world leader in the development of 
     customized lithium ion batteries for medical, military, 
     aerospace and vehicle applications. If Quallion is successful 
     in its bid for grants through the Department of Energy's 
     Electric Drive and Vehicle Battery Component Manufacturing 
     Initiative, it is set to immediately execute the construction 
     of state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities to produce--

  Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

       Quallion projects that with this grant funding the proposed 
     facility could be fully operational by 2011, and could 
     produce more that 20,000 lithium ion batteries each year.

  This is the killer.

       In addition, Quallion projects this funding will create 
     more than 2,300 new and long-term jobs nationwide.

  This is the program that Representative Cantor decided to use as an 
offset so he could fool the American people into believing we need to 
find an offset to offset $1 billion of expenses, when we only have $175 
million in expenses.
  So they write the letters privately to the Secretary asking for 
funding to go with their districts to create jobs and then they come to 
Washington and they gut the program for no reason.
  This is another letter, and it is a little close to home. This is a 
letter I wrote. I was joined by my colleague Senator Vitter, Republican 
from Louisiana, and my Republican counterpart Rodney Alexander, who 
represents the district in my State. We sent this letter on December 
21.

       We are writing to reiterate our strong support for Next 
     Autoworks Company's loan application under the Department of 
     Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program 
     and inquire about the status of the application.
       Next Autoworks resubmitted a revised application in May 
     2010 that was almost immediately declared substantially 
     complete and expeditiously reviewed for technical and 
     financial merit. We appreciate the Department's work to move 
     the application through several critical stage-gates over the 
     past several months.
       Next Autoworks has the ability to transform communities in 
     Louisiana by bringing critical economic growth in jobs to our 
     state and region. As you know, the company plans to re-equip 
     a former Guide Corp Plant in Monroe, LA, that was shuttered 
     in 2006 and establish a production facility that would bring 
     approximately 1,400 direct jobs and an additional 1,800 
     indirect jobs to Northeast Louisiana. In addition, the 
     project will create thousands of jobs at supply facilities 
     across the U.S. The State of Louisiana and local communities 
     have already demonstrated their commitment by offering this 
     company $82 million in grants, $128 million in employee 
     training services, and an estimated $33.8 million in tax 
     abatements to support the project.

  This is how strongly our Republican Governor and Republican 
legislature in Louisiana feel about this project, that we have put up 
State and local money to see if we could attract this loan from the 
Federal Government to get this going.
  It is signed by my colleague Senator Vitter and signed by my friend 
and colleague Representative Alexander, who represents this district. 
This is one of our No. 1 economic development projects in the State of 
Louisiana, and what did the Representative do last night? He voted to 
gut the program.
  I have dozens of other letters, but I am going to pause because I 
think I have made my point. I am going to read every one of these 
letters that I have between now and when this debate ends. I just pray 
the press will do their job and ask the Members who voted and sent 
these letters why did they send a letter to the Secretary asking for 
the program and then turn around and gut the program when they came to 
Washington.
  I would like to ask for 5 minutes more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The other point is this: This is not just an issue for 
one State or two States. That is why Democrats believe strongly about 
this because this is about the whole country. The President has 
declared disasters this year in 48 of the 50 States. Maybe if we just 
had had disasters in one or two places and they were not that terrible, 
we would figure out some way. The problem is we have disasters in all 
States, and I am going to show what these pictures portray because they 
are heartwrenching.
  This is New Jersey. This is someone's household belongings. This is a 
home that is completely uninhabitable. I am not sure how high the water 
is, but this is what a home looks like after a flood. I can visualize 
what it looked like after Katrina and smell, even more than the vision.
  This is what New Jersey looked like a couple weeks ago. This water 
has gone down, but this is Bound Brook, NJ. We do not know much about 
this town. We hear about Trenton. We hear about New York. I have never 
been to Bound Brook, NJ, but I am sure it is a lovely place and it 
needs our help.
  So what does Representative Cantor do? He comes to Washington, he 
looks at places such as this, and he decides out of the blue sky that 
he is now going to assert his power by demanding an offset for disaster 
funding when it is not necessary. The offset is way more than what is 
required. Again, it is an offset that is creating jobs in America.
  I wish to say something else about the danger of requiring offsets 
and respond directly to what minority leader Mitch McConnell said 
earlier today. I think he said something akin to the reason we want to 
require offsets is because we have to stop doing things the same way 
around here, and just because we have never required them in the past, 
that is no reason to not require them now. I understand that. I am kind 
of a person who likes to do things differently. I like to change 
things.
  I wish to remind the leader that not one Republican, to my mind, 
either in the Senate or the House, ever asked for 5 minutes to debate 
$1 to offset war or rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish to put 
up this chart.
  This is from 2001, so this is a chart that shows--let's say the last 
year. I think it is important for the public to understand not just 
today but 10 years.
  If we were to chart, which we have done here, a lot of this 
supplemental spending, emergency spending and disaster spending--these 
are not for just natural disasters, these are for emergencies. For 
example, when we went to war in Iraq, it was an emergency. When we went 
to war in Afghanistan, it was an emergency. When we had the avian flu, 
that was an emergency, not a disaster. So this is disasters and 
emergencies.
  Let's take this red bar here. It says Iraq and Afghanistan, $79 
billion. Do my colleagues see this zero here? That is zero offset. So 
$79 billion and no offset. This one is war money.
  This is tsunami money that we actually sent to--remember we had the 
tsunami in Indonesia, and we sent some money over there. Did Eric 
Cantor come to the floor and say we need to offset the money? No. So we 
sent that money, and less than 2 percent of it was offset.
  Here is Iraq and Afghanistan, and none of it was offset--$87.6 
billion.
  So I think disaster victims in his own district and around the 
country are saying: So why are we now in this debate trying to find an 
offset we really don't need for a program that really works? That is a 
good question. If we want to find an offset, we should find another 
program. The only offset required is $175 million, but that makes too 
much sense.
  So I want the Republican leadership to know they are risking a very 
important debate. I don't believe we should even talk about shutting 
the government down. People are tired of that. We just went through a 
challenge to the whole economy with the debt ceiling limit. Enough is 
enough. Democrats should not, in my view, cave on this point. We should 
fight and get them to compromise which is reasonable.
  In addition to these arguments, I will put up a chart that is hard to 
look at, but I think for the gulf coast Republicans and Republican 
Senators, it is a very important chart.
  One of the dangers of requiring an offset is, No. 1, like right now, 
it is virtually impossible to get 535 Members to all agree on an 
offset. So what happens is, if we demand to have one, we keep the 
victims waiting while we debate. It also doesn't help to choose an 
offset that is very popular on one side. There might be a program that 
we could over the next couple of months decide is unnecessary, but we 
can't do that within a few days of the disaster. It takes time. They 
should know that.
  Let me explain what this is for the gulf coast Senators. I had this 
done after Katrina just to show the vulnerability of the gulf coast. 
All of these red lines that look like spaghetti and then these bigger 
lines--the blue and the yellow and the orange--these are all

[[Page S5928]]

hurricanes that have actually hit the United States between 1851 and 
2008. It is a very frightening chart.
  One of the reasons I think Senator Rubio from Florida is voting with 
us is because he has seen a picture of this chart. That is how many 
hurricanes have hit Florida since 1851. He is most certainly aware from 
his State that if he takes the position that we have to require an 
offset to fund disasters, his job as a Senator will be very, very 
difficult, even more challenging than it is today, because the next 
time a hurricane hits Florida, he is going to have to go sit down with 
the budget folks and find out--before he can offer his people the 
$2,000 in emergency aid, the $30,000 that helps them, the loans through 
the Small Business Committee, the loans to get their businesses back--
he is going to have to come up here and negotiate to find an offset.
  Last night, I watched the debate on the House side. I thought our 
Democratic colleagues did a beautiful job, and I wish to thank them for 
the beautiful way they spoke. I didn't see one Republican come to the 
floor. They had just one of their leaders talking last night when the 
vote happened. Maybe they are a little embarrassed, and they should be 
because I am going to read the letters they sent.
  Also, the gulf coast Republicans I think really have to think about 
this because these storms, as we can see--my State and the people I 
represent are in Hurricane Alley. This is Hurricane Rita, the blue, 
which is one of the most devastating storms. That is why it is a 
thicker line. Hurricane Gustav is the orange, Hurricane Ike is the dark 
pink, and Hurricane Katrina is the yellow. All of these storms hit us 
and wrecked the gulf coast.
  Let me say what happened after that. Haley Barbour, the Governor of 
Mississippi, who is still the Governor of Mississippi, came up here 
when George Bush was the President and got $4.6 billion without one 
penny of offset, and he got that within 60 days of the storm. I am 
going to repeat that. Governor Haley Barbour, who is still the Governor 
of Mississippi, came to Washington, met with the President, and left 
with $4.6 billion to rebuild Mississippi. The Congress gave Louisiana 
$5.4 billion, for which I was very grateful. However, we had 70 percent 
of the damage but only got 55 percent of the money, so we were 
shortchanged. I had to work for years. I finally got that squared away.
  But this is why gulf coast Republicans and Republican Senators from 
the gulf coast should think not twice but three times before they vote 
to require an offset.
  I am just saying I am not going to forget this vote, because I chair 
this committee, and if my colleagues vote to require an offset and 
another storm hits their State, then the responsibility is on their 
shoulders to tell their people: I am sorry, I can't help you until I go 
to Washington and find an offset.
  Maybe it will get so ridiculous--and I am going to call this the 
Cantor doctrine--maybe it will get so ridiculous that Eric Cantor will 
tell all the people in America--there was a cartoon in the newspapers 
about this. I am having it blown up because it is really sad, but it is 
actually funny. There is a woman sitting on top of her roof because her 
house is completely flooded. She has a phone, and she calls FEMA and 
FEMA says: We can't rescue you right now. We are looking for an offset.
  So maybe the new Cantor Republican model of ``pick yourself up by 
your bootstraps and swim away on your own'' will actually really be put 
into practice because I think that is what they want because before 
that woman can be rescued, before the debris can be removed, that woman 
is going to have to sit down at the table with her husband and kids in 
a broken-down house or trailer and suggest some offsets to send to 
their Congressman before we can send them help. That is not right. That 
is what this debate is about.
  Now, do we eventually have to pay for these disasters? Absolutely.
  The Wall Street Journal editorialized against me the other day, so 
let me answer them. They said: There goes Senator Landrieu; she doesn't 
think she has to pay for anything. That is not true. I believe right 
now we are paying for the war in Iraq, and it is very tough to pay for 
that. We are finding a way in the supercommittee. But we didn't have to 
find an offset before we could let our troops march in. We didn't have 
them standing on the border, saying: Stand right here. Hold your fire. 
Eric Cantor is working on an offset for you. We sent the troops in, we 
let the bombers go, and we will figure out how to pay for it later.
  So I am telling the Republicans in the House that they better think 
very carefully about this vote. Senator Reid has sent a very good 
compromise. He said: We will give up our number, we will take your 
number on FEMA, but we are not going to take this offset.
  Now, I still think and I want to say for the record, as the chairman 
of this committee, that 3.65 is not going to be enough to get us 
through all of next year, but it will get us through the next couple of 
weeks and months--not months, maybe weeks. The government won't shut 
down, and FEMA will have money to operate, as the leader said. It is 
not ideal. It is not what is in our bill, which is the best, which is a 
$6.5 billion level, which is funding not just FEMA, but it will fund 
the Corps of Engineers, community development, agriculture. What the 
House is doing only funds FEMA. It doesn't give any money to the poor. 
It doesn't give any money to community development. It doesn't give any 
money to the farmers. So if you are sitting out there looking at your 
farm with your crops ruined, please don't think the House of 
Representatives is doing one thing to help you because they are not.

  So I have given any number of reasons why this is an important debate 
to have. There is no guarantee Democrats will win, but every now and 
then it is a good thing to stand up for principle, and I believe this 
is a principle worth standing up for and worth fighting for.
  I hope the press does their job over the next several days and asks 
these Republicans: How in the world can you send a private letter 
asking for funding and then come back to Washington and gut the same 
program? And if the press does their job and if the people in our 
country will ask those same questions, maybe a few of these Republican 
leaders will compromise the way they should. Either give up the offset 
or come up with a different one. Come up with another one that is much 
less harmful.
  Let me end with this. We have three letters that I will submit for 
the Record. If people can't take my word for any of this, they can 
listen to the chamber of commerce. What did the chamber of commerce 
say? I will submit their letter. This is the wrong thing to do, the 
chamber says. Don't eliminate this program. It is creating jobs in 
America. So the Republicans, I know, don't really like to listen to 
what I say a lot, but they should listen to the chamber of commerce.
  The National Manufacturing Association--a very conservative group--
sent the Republicans a letter saying: Bad deal. Don't do it. They did 
it anyway.
  I just got a letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. All of the 
mayors in the country, Republicans and Democrats, sent a letter to the 
House saying: Don't do this. And they did it anyway.
  So the only people more powerful and the only group more powerful 
than the chamber, than NAM, than the mayors, are the people themselves. 
So I hope this weekend the people will say to their representatives: 
Don't cut out a program that is creating jobs. Don't require disaster 
victims to have an offset. Let's keep the government operating, and 
let's find a way to pay for this over time together and get this 
deficit under control.
  I am willing to do that. As the chair of this committee, I promise 
them we can do better budgeting in the future. Nobody did it really 
great in the past. I am willing to do that. I am willing to work with 
them in any way. But let's not go down this dangerous and inappropriate 
road.

                               Exhibit 1

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, January 14, 2009.
     Hon. Steven Chu,
     Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: I write to express my support of Aptera 
     Motors' application for a loan under the Department of 
     Energy's 136 Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing 
     Incentive Program (ATVMIP). Funding will allow Aptera to 
     establish U.S. manufacturing facilities for the commercial 
     production of its plug-in and hybrid electric cars. Aptera 
     Motors plans to purchase and

[[Page S5929]]

     equip manufacturing facilities to begin commercial-scale 
     production of its energy efficient electric vehicles. 
     Awarding this opportunity to Aptera Motors will greatly 
     assist a leading developer of electric vehicles in my 
     district.
       Electric vehicle initiatives like Aptera's will aid U.S. 
     long-term energy goals by shifting away from fossil fuels and 
     using viable renewable energy sources like plug-in electric 
     energy. Additionally, Aptera's vehicles will reduce 
     dependence on foreign oil and enhance energy security. 
     Aptera's project will also promote domestic job creation 
     throughout California as well as in other states.
       Unlike many other electric vehicles, Aptera's energy 
     efficient vehicles have a range of over 100 miles per charge 
     and the possibility to become one of the most energy 
     efficient vehicles in the world. A loan to Aptera will help 
     accelerate the move from gasoline-powered vehicles to cleaner 
     electric vehicles.
       I urge you to give Aptera Motors' Advanced Technology 
     Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program funding application 
     full consideration. If I can be of further assistance, please 
     do not hesitate to contact me or my Press Assistant, Justin 
     LoFranco at (202) 225-3906.
           Respectfully,
                                                     Darrell Issa,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Re Quallion application for Department of Energy's Electric 
         Drive and Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing 
         Initiative grant.

     Secretary Steven Chu,
     U.S. Department of Energy, Independence Ave., SW, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Secretary Chu: The State of California has 
     traditionally assumed a leading role in fighting global 
     warming and working to eliminate our dependence on foreign 
     sources of oil. We want to commend you for also taking 
     effective steps towards achieving these goals. As part of 
     this effort, the Department of Energy's Electric Drive and 
     Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative is 
     currently reviewing submissions for the construction of new 
     lithium ion battery facilities in the United States. The 
     Initiative is a huge step forward in our efforts to improve 
     our environment, eliminate our dependence on foreign sources 
     of oil and create a modern ``green collar'' workforce here in 
     the United States.
       Quallion, an innovative American company located in 
     California, can be a valuable partner in your efforts because 
     it is ready today to directly support President Obama's goal 
     to have one million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015. 
     Quallion is a world leader in the development of customized 
     lithium ion batteries for medical, military, aerospace and 
     vehicle applications. If Quallion is successful in its bid 
     for grants through the Department of Energy's Electric Drive 
     and Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative, 
     it is set to immediately execute the construction of a state-
     of-the-art manufacturing facility to produce advanced lithium 
     ion cells, modules and battery technology in volumes that 
     will meet America's current and future military and 
     commercial needs. Quallion projects that with this grant 
     funding the proposed facility could be fully operational by 
     2012, and could produce more than 20,000 lithium ion 
     batteries each year.
       In addition, Quallion projects that this funding will 
     create more than 2,300 new and long-term jobs nationwide. It 
     will also signal America's seriousness to the world that we 
     are ready to compete in the manufacturing of green 
     technologies, in this case the lithium ion battery 
     manufacturing space.
       The lithium ion batteries manufactured in Quallion's new 
     facility will have the potential to deliver real and 
     immediate environmental solutions, while also creating new 
     jobs at a time when Americans need them the most. The 
     Environmental Protection Agency estimates that truck idling 
     results in the emission of 11 million tons of CO2 
     and the consumption of 960 million gallons of diesel fuel 
     annually. Quallion's new facility will produce zero emission 
     advanced lithium ion batteries designed to replace engine 
     idling as a power source for stationary trucks. Quallion will 
     deliver an immediate clean energy solution that enables the 1 
     million heavy trucks on our roads to comply with the growing 
     number of anti-idling laws across the U.S., eliminate 
     unnecessary pollution, and significantly reduce America's 
     consumption of fossil fuels.
       We believe that the Department of Energy's Electric Drive 
     and Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative 
     can and will play a large role in helping us achieve our 
     goals. We are also confident that Quallion is a perfect 
     partner in our objectives and will advance projects that are 
     vital to our energy policy and national security.
       Thank you for the leadership you have provided the 
     Department and our country as we embark on an exciting era in 
     our nation's stewardship of the environment and as we move 
     towards our shared goal of energy independence.
           Sincerely,
         Brad Sherman, Dana Rohrabacher, Lynn C. Woolsey, Howard 
           L. Berman, Lois Capps, Brian P. Bilbray, Diane E. 
           Watson, Gary G. Miller, Jim Costa, Kevin McCarthy, 
           Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Ken Calvert, Duncan Hunter, 
           Darrell E. Issa, David Dreier, Jerry McNerney, Adam B. 
           Schiff.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, December 21, 2010.
     Hon. Steven Chu,
     U.S. Department of Energy,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Chu: We are writing to reiterate our strong 
     support for Next Autoworks Company's loan application under 
     the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicle 
     Manufacturing (ATVM) program and inquire about the status of 
     the application.
       Next Autoworks resubmitted a revised ATVM application in 
     May 2010 that was almost immediately declared substantially 
     complete and expeditiously reviewed for technical and 
     financial merit. We appreciate the Department's work to move 
     the application through several critical stage-gates over the 
     past several months.
       Next Autoworks has the ability to transform communities in 
     Louisiana by bringing critical economic growth and jobs to 
     our state and region. As you know, the company plans to re-
     equip a former Guide Corp plant in Monroe, LA that was 
     shuttered in 2006 and establish a production facility that 
     would bring approximately 1,400 direct jobs and an additional 
     1,800 indirect jobs to Northeast Louisiana. In addition, the 
     project will create thousands of jobs at supplier facilities 
     across the U.S. The State of Louisiana and local communities 
     have already demonstrated their commitment to the project by 
     offering the company $82 million in grants, $12.8 in employee 
     training services, and an estimated $33.8 million in tax 
     abatements to support the project.
       Every day that Next Autoworks' application is delayed is 
     another day that workers cannot be hired to begin work at the 
     Monroe site and help mitigate our state's continued high 
     unemployment rate. Moreover, continued delay in the financing 
     for the project will also negatively impact the vehicle's 
     launch timing and this Administration's goals for fuel 
     economy. DOE's own environmental assessment of this project, 
     issued in October 2010, states that Next Autoworks' vehicle 
     will have a significant positive impact on fleet fuel economy 
     and the environment by providing a high quality, affordable 
     ``green'' car to the American market.
       We strongly urge you to continue to expedite Next 
     Autoworks' application. We would request an update on the 
     status of the application and expected timeframe for moving 
     forward before the end of the year.
           Sincerely,
     Mary Landrieu,
       U.S. Senator.
     David Vitter,
       U.S. Senator.
     Rodney Alexander,
       Member of Congress.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous 
consent that I be permitted to speak for no more than 5 minutes and 
that the Senator from West Virginia follow my presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank 
the Senator from Louisiana. I also want to point out, look at all those 
red lines. Those are the paths of hurricanes. Where do you think most 
of them were going between 1851 and 2008? And why are folks like us on 
the gulf coast and the Atlantic coast so sensitive about disaster 
money? It is because we have been hit over and over.
  Our lands we call paradise. But they happen to be, as the Senator 
from Louisiana said, in the middle of ``hurricane highway.'' It is a 
part of our lifestyle. When I was a kid, it was an excuse to get out of 
school. When I was a bachelor, it was an excuse to have a party. But 
now that I have the privilege of representing one of those very large 
gulf coast States and Atlantic coast States, it is absolute, utter 
destruction.
  When Hurricane Andrew hit Miami, had it turned one degree to the 
north, and instead drawn a bead on the Dade-Broward line in north 
Miami, it would have been a $50 billion insurance loss storm in 1992 
dollars. That would have been upward of $80 billion today. It would 
have taken down every insurance company that was doing business in the 
path of that storm. This is the destructive power. Do our people need 
help? Of course they need help.

                          ____________________