[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13008-13011]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          INVESTING IN AMERICA

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the state of 
unemployment in our country and what we need to do to finally create 
sustainable jobs and grow our economy.
  The unemployment rate currently stands at 9.5 percent nationally and 
in my State 10.7 percent. Clearly, something has to be done about this. 
It appears that the new Senator we are expecting from the State of West 
Virginia may be the deciding factor when we vote later this month to 
begin addressing this problem.
  First, I think we need to understand that we need to instill 
certainty into the economy by providing relief to the segment of our 
fellow citizens who cannot find work. Because of the downturn in the 
economy, I have already voted multiple times to extend unemployment 
insurance from the standard 26 weeks to 99 weeks, amounting to tens of 
billions of dollars. But this emergency extension has now expired, 
leaving many without the benefits they need to stay afloat. So let's 
extend unemployment insurance once again. Resuming this emergency 
program through November 30 will cost about $33 billion, and I believe 
we should pay for at least half of it from the stimulus funds.
  Just before the recess, I supported an unemployment insurance 
extension that was fully paid for, but my Democratic colleagues blocked 
that amendment offered by Senator John Thune, preferring instead to 
continually borrow money on the credit card of our children and 
grandchildren. Last year, we borrowed $1.4 trillion. That means we 
borrowed 41 cents of every dollar we spent last year. Over half of this 
debt is held by foreign investors. By the end of this year, our 
national debt will be a staggering $13.8 trillion. That is an almost $2 
trillion increase in 1 year. As the book of Proverbs tells us in 
chapter 7, verse 22, ``The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is 
the servant of the lender.''
  America must address its debt and stop borrowing money from countries 
such as China and others that don't have our best interests at heart. 
We just can't keep kicking the can down the road. Our national debt is 
one of the most important problems we face, and our failure to begin to 
address the fiscal crisis will damage our economy, our national 
security, and the kind of future we leave to our children and 
grandchildren.
  Still, I know Ohioans are hurting, so I approached the majority 
leader and told him I would provide the vote he needed to extend 
unemployment insurance if the Democrats were willing to use some of the 
estimated $40 billion unspent stimulus money to help offset at least 
half of the stand-alone unemployment insurance extension. He rejected 
my offer but remained at the table on what I considered to be a fair 
and simple bill: Extend the unemployment benefits and pay for half of 
it.
  So I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let's get it 
done. Let's extend UI benefits in a bipartisan manner and pay for at 
least half with stimulus funds. I am confident we could get 60 votes 
for that tomorrow.
  Second, I know most people in America would rather have a job than 
collect unemployment insurance. They would rather have a job than 
collect unemployment insurance. But my concern is that not enough is 
being done by this administration--or by Congress, for that matter--to 
put people back to work or create an environment where businesses have 
enough confidence in the future to unleash a corporate, private sector 
stimulus.
  I wish to quote from a current Newsweek article by Fareed Zakaria 
entitled ``Obama's CEO Problem. He needs business on his side now.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record 
following my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. VOINOVICH. He says the following:

       Actually, there is a second stimulus, one that could have a 
     dramatic effect on the economy--even more so than government 
     spending. And it won't add to the deficit.

  He goes on:

       The Federal Reserve recently reported that America's 500 
     largest nonfinancial companies have accumulated an 
     astonishing $1.8 trillion in cash on their balance sheets . . 
     . and yet, most corporations are not spending this money on 
     new plants, equipment, or workers. Were they to loosen their 
     purse strings, hundreds of billions of dollars would start 
     pouring into the economy. And these investments would likely 
     have greater effect and staying power than any government 
     stimulus.

  He goes on to say:

       The key to a sustainable recovery and robust economic 
     growth is to get companies to start investing in America. So 
     why are they reluctant, despite having mounds of cash lying 
     around? [Mr. Zakaria] put this question to a series of 
     business leaders . . . economic uncertainty was the primary 
     cause of their caution . . . but in addition to economics, 
     they kept talking about politics, about the uncertainty 
     surrounding regulations and taxes.

  The Business Roundtable, which has supported the Obama 
administration, has begun to complain about the myriad of new laws and 
regulations being cooked up in Washington.
  He goes on to say:

       One CEO said to me, ``Almost every agency we deal with has 
     announced some expansion of its authority, which naturally 
     makes me concerned about what is in store for the future.'' 
     Another pointed out that between the new health care bill, 
     finance reform, and possibly cap-and-trade, his company had 
     lawyers working day and night trying to figure out the 
     implications of these new regulations.

  Finally, Mr. Zakaria concludes:

       Obama now needs to outline a growth and competitiveness 
     agenda that will seem compelling to the American business 
     community. This might sound like psychology more than 
     economics, and the populist left will surely scream that the 
     last thing we need to do is pander to business. But in fact 
     the first thing we need is for these people to start spending 
     their money--soon. As a leading New York businessman, who had 
     publicly supported Obama during the campaign, said to me, 
     ``Their perception is our reality.''

  John Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, recently put it this way. He 
said:

       A populism that begins in the boardroom would really be 
     change we could believe in.

  So the administration and Congress should listen to these concerns, 
give

[[Page 13009]]

the private sector the certainty it needs to plan and grow, and unleash 
a lasting stimulus that doesn't cost a dime.
  I am reminded of my second inaugural speech as Governor in 1995. I 
made the following statement which I believe is still relevant today. I 
was elected Governor in 1990, and this was my second inaugural speech 
after being reelected:

       We have tried to respond to a very clear message the voters 
     sent in 1990 and reaffirmed in 1994. People are fed up with 
     big government--fed up with government that presumed to know 
     or sought to provide all the answers--and fed up with 
     government that had forgotten its mission and lost touch with 
     its customers.
       They were telling those of us in government that we were no 
     better than the people whose hard-earned dollars go into the 
     tax basket. Ohioans were expecting us to work harder and 
     smarter and do more with less, just as they were doing in 
     their households, farms, factories, and offices.
       And they were reminding us of how Lincoln defined good 
     government. He said, ``The legitimate object of government is 
     to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have 
     done, but cannot do at all, or cannot do so well, for 
     themselves, in their separate and individual capacities.''

  That is what Lincoln had to say.
  I still believe these words are relevant today. I think the 
government can serve the economic needs of the country by doing 
something I have talked about for a long time, which is by passing a 
surface transportation reauthorization bill this year, which is a 
legitimate objective for government. This is something people can't do 
individually or working with others. The government has to do this. 
With the U.S. economy struggling from the worst economic recession 
since the Great Depression, the immediate impact of this bill would be 
on jobs.
  According to the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials, AASHTO, which represents the State 
departments of transportation, there are over $47 billion of highway 
projects ready to go, supporting 1.6 million jobs--again, $47 billion 
of highway projects ready to go that would create 1.6 million jobs. 
According to the American Road and Transportation Builders, ARTBA, the 
transportation construction industry supports the equivalent of 
3,383,200 American jobs.
  Just think about the massive impact this industry has on employment 
in the United States. It directly provides more--this is something that 
is really surprising to me--it directly provides more American jobs 
than the U.S. motor vehicle and parts manufacturers, plastics and 
rubber product manufacturers, beverage and tobacco product 
manufacturers, and petroleum and coal products manufacturers, among 
others. Our domestic transportation industry is the backbone of 
virtually all of the major industry sectors that comprise the U.S. 
economy--and the American jobs that they sustain. The infrastructure 
built, maintained, and managed by this industry is a vital part of our 
economy.
  Unfortunately, the American transportation construction sector is 
currently in the worst condition since World War II, over 60 years ago. 
The unemployment rate in construction is over 20 percent--higher than 
any other industry and two times higher than the unemployment rate in 
the U.S. economy generally.
  As a former member of the Laborers' International Local 310 in 
Cleveland, I am particularly sensitive to the unemployment among my 
brothers and sisters in the labor movement. Highway and transit 
construction accounts for about 75 percent of jobs for laborers in this 
country. The unions have underscored in meetings all over Ohio that 
they don't want unemployment. They don't want unemployment. They want 
jobs, and they can't understand why Congress is hellbent to push a 
climate bill that will put more of them out of work rather than the 
reauthorization of the surface transportation bill.
  Why aren't we spending our time on the reauthorization of surface 
transportation? Why are we spending so much time on cap and trade?
  I wish to share with my colleagues some stories everyday people on 
Main Street have to say.
  Loree Soggs with the Cleveland Building and Construction Trades 
Council, which represents more than 17,000 union workers in northeast 
Ohio, said workers are not seeing much of a spike in jobs, and 
unemployment figures range from 20 percent in some trades to 40 percent 
in other trades, such as electricians.
  In Cincinnati, OH, Matt Brennan, CEO of Loveland Excavating, Inc., 
says that his company's sales are down 53 percent, his workforce is 
down 55 percent, and workers' salaries are down 25 to 35 percent due to 
the lack of overtime. He has seen numerous projects abandoned due to 
lack of funding.
  Banks are calling lines of credit for creditworthy contractors. There 
are no lending sources available. Many contractors are failing and 
closing their doors. That is happening all over. This is not just 
occurring in my State but, as I say, across the country.
  Mr. Hammack, president of C.W. Matthews Contracting Co., one of the 
largest road construction companies in Georgia, said the ripple effect 
of the delay of a reauthorization bill has already reached firms like 
his. His company has already laid off 700 of its 2,000 employees since 
2007 because of the recession. Now the delay in passage of the 
Transportation reauthorization bill and the dearth of State contracts 
mean he is planning to lay off as many as 200 more employees by the end 
of the year.
  He said:

       You can't proceed under business as normal when there's no 
     clear direction out there. It's too dangerous to bet on the 
     future and put your company in financial jeopardy.

  He said that the administration's stimulus package, while a positive 
shot, hasn't provided long-term help for the heavy construction 
companies such as his.

       The stimulus package, at least as it relates to Georgia, 
     isn't putting the heavy equipment to work that moves dirt.

  He said:

       . . . It's not a sustainable cure for what ails the 
     transportation industry.

  Paul Campbell, executive vice president of Wheeler Machinery, a 
Caterpillar dealer in Salt Lake City, said that Utah's contract work 
has ground to a standstill as well.

       There's a trickledown when you mess with infrastructure. It 
     has a freezing effect on everything.

  At his firm, this has meant 221 layoffs. He is considering laying off 
more of the 629 employees left.
  Mr. Campbell said:

       There's very little private money going into any kind of 
     construction. You take the Federal contracts out of that and 
     it gets a whole lot worse really quick.

  We need a reauthorization of the transportation bill. States are 
facing the most difficult financial situation in 50 years. This year, 
in spite of the stimulus, 21 States have indicated that they would be 
forced to reduce spending in transportation.
  The reauthorization is a ``three-fer.'' First, it is jobs, jobs, 
jobs. This bill will give confidence and certainty to an industry that 
is struggling right now. Recently a contractor testified before the EPW 
Committee on how a long-term bill will provide certainty to the 
transportation industry. Here is what he said:

       Failure to pass a multiyear transportation bill creates 
     significant market uncertainty. The uncertainty makes it 
     difficult to hold onto valued employees. It makes it hard to 
     convince subcontractors to work for us; it makes it hard to 
     convince lenders to invest in us. When there is an 
     inconsistent flow of Federal funding, State agencies hold up 
     the release of projects that are ready to bid and construct.

  Second, a reauthorization bill will be good for our competitive 
position in terms of our economy and infrastructure. Our Nation's 
transportation needs exceed current investment at all levels of 
government. According to the Department of Transportation, the average 
annual investment level needed to maintain the current condition and 
performance of our highway system is $105.6 billion, while the cost 
necessary to improve our highways and bridges would be another $174.6 
billion. The bridges are in terrible shape. How many more Minneapolis 
I-35 bridges are lurking out there?
  The last reauthorization bill, SAFETEA-LU, created the National 
Surface Transportation Policy and

[[Page 13010]]

Revenue Study Commission to study our infrastructure needs. We called 
for the commission to give us the straight facts. The commission called 
for investments of at least $225 billion annually over the next 50 
years at all levels of government to bring our existing transportation 
infrastructure to a good state of repair and to support our growing 
economy.
  Third, a reauthorization bill will help our environment. 
Transportation contributes almost 30 percent to the greenhouse gas 
emissions we have in this country. This figure blows my mind. The 
average length of time that urban areas experience congested conditions 
amounts to 6.4 hours each day. Anyone who travels in Washington here 
understands what that is about. The vehicles caught in stop-and-go 
traffic emit far more emissions than they do without frequent 
acceleration and braking. In recent years, drivers have experienced 
over 4.2 billion hours of delay annually. Traffic congestion is also 
responsible for 9 billion gallons of wasted fuel each year. Wasted fuel 
and lost productivity due to traffic congestion costs the U.S. economy 
over $78 billion annually. Think about that. A reauthorization bill is 
needed to reduce congestion and consequently reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  A study recently prepared for the Federal Highway Administration 
found that bottlenecks on the Nation's highway system--caused by 
congested intersections, poor highway operations, inadequate capacity, 
and poor alignments--impose 243 million hours of delay on truck 
shipments with the direct costs of the delays totaling $7.8 billion per 
year. According to the American Trucking Association, truckload miles 
traveled nationwide were off 17 percent last year. The average miles 
per truck were down 20 percent. In other words, truck drivers are 
allowed to only work so many hours. They have X number of miles that 
they can go. Because of the congestion we have today, they are getting 
almost 20 percent less mileage covered. That is because of the 
congestion they encounter all over this country.
  This is a great time to invest in infrastructure. We will get a 
better bang for our buck. Because of the economy today, the return on 
infrastructure investment is better than it has been in recent years. 
Over the years, we saw SAFETEA-LU money dwindle because of the high 
cost of oil. We also saw the high cost of steel. Because of the 
economy, project bids are coming in extremely low. In fact, in Ohio, 
bids have been up to 30 percent lower. So what a time to invest. We are 
going to get a return on our investment.
  The gas tax. I want you to know that I am not talking about borrowing 
the money for the reauthorization of the surface transportation bill, 
as we do for everything else here. That is what the American people are 
very upset about--spending and borrowing the money. The American 
people, as I say, are fed up because they are concerned with the 
deficit and budgets not being balanced as far as the eye can see. We 
will not have to charge our kids' and grandkids' credit cards. We can 
pay for this by increasing the gas tax, which has not been increased 
since 1993. The fact is that Americans are willing to pay an increase 
in the gas tax to create jobs, improve our infrastructure, and better 
the climate. Many of my conservative colleagues do not consider the gas 
tax as a tax but a user fee. The SAFETEA-LU-created National Surface 
Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission recommends that 
Congress enact a 10-cent increase in the Federal gasoline tax and a 15-
cent increase in the Federal diesel tax to just maintain our 
infrastructure.
  I remember when I was mayor and President Reagan was faced with a 
similar situation with the economy in 1982. We were facing record 
unemployment--about 10 percent. I remember that well. As I say, I was 
mayor of the city of Cleveland. We had 20 percent unemployment in 
Cleveland. During the lameduck session, the Reagan administration 
proposed a gas tax increase and, subsequently, Congress passed the 
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, which provided a 5-cent 
gas tax increase.
  The American people think they are already paying increased gas 
taxes. In 2009, Building America's Future conducted a poll, which found 
that--that is Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania--60 percent of 
Americans believe that the Federal gas tax has been increased every 
year. But as you know, the gas tax has not been indexed to inflation, 
so its purchasing power has declined by 33 percent since it was last 
increased in 1993.
  I have been meeting with groups since March of last year. They 
desperately want a reauthorization bill and they are willing to pay an 
increase in the gas tax. Groups that in the past have never accepted 
such an increase--listen to this--the Chamber of Commerce, National 
Association of Manufacturers, American Trucking Association--Bill 
Graves, the head of the truckers--the International Union of Operating 
Engineers, Laborers' International Union, Association of General 
Contractors, National League of Cities, National Association of 
Counties, and the American Public Transit Association, to name a few. 
There are many more.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of all 
the groups that support increasing the gas tax. It is an unbelievable 
group, including the League of American Bicyclists. People are willing 
to do this.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
     Officials (AASHTO), American Road & Transportation Builders 
     Association (ARTBA), American Public Transportation 
     Association (APTA), Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), America 
     Bikes, American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), 
     American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), American 
     Highway Users Alliance, American Society of Civil Engineers 
     (ASCE), American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), 
     American Trucking Associations (ATA), Associated Equipment 
     Distributors (AED), Associated General Contractors of America 
     (AGC), Association for Commuter Transportation (ACT), 
     Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM), Association of 
     Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), International 
     Union of Operating Engineers, Laborers' International Union 
     of North America (LiUNA!), League of American Bicyclists, 
     National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA), National 
     Association of Counties (NACo), National Association of 
     Development Organizations (NADO), National Ready Mixed 
     Concrete Association (NRMCA), New Starts Working Group, Safe 
     Routes to School National Partnership, Transportation Trades 
     Department, AFL-CIO, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and 
     Joiners of America.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. This is what is exciting to me. Today, Senators Boxer, 
Inhofe, Baucus, and our staffs are working full time--and a lot of 
colleagues don't understand what is going on now--to get a bill done 
this year on a bipartisan basis. Two Democrats and two Republicans are 
working together. This is real stuff, OK, not something that the leader 
will have to deal with in his office in terms of climate change and 
other things that we have been talking about. The good news is that the 
House of Representatives has been working on reauthorization for 2\1/2\ 
years, and the House bill has been voted out of subcommittee. The bill 
is ready to be preconferenced as soon as we get our work done. 
Unfortunately--and here is the thing I am concerned about--we are still 
waiting to hear from the White House on their priorities. I recently 
met with Secretary Ray LaHood, and he indicated that we will be hearing 
from the administration soon.
  But the fact is the person we need to hear from is President Barack 
Obama. That is who we need to hear from. He is out on the stump talking 
about creating jobs. Here is an unbelievable opportunity--a way to 
create real jobs and not borrow the money from our kids and grandkids 
to pay for it. On occasion, the President has said he is opposed to any 
tax, including a gas tax, on the ``middle class.'' I point out that the 
Kerry-Lieberman bill, which he supports, includes an increase in the 
gas tax of between 20 and 60 cents higher per gallon. That doesn't make 
sense. He supports that but not 10 cents for highways? It should be 
noted that all the groups who want the reauthorization bill and are 
willing to pay for it with a gas tax, by the way, are up in arms about 
the Kerry-Lieberman bill,

[[Page 13011]]

because they think it diverts funds from the highway trust fund.
  They sent a letter to the President, saying this gas tax is to be 
used for transportation and transit in this country. We don't warrant 
its use in the Kerry-Lieberman bill to raise money for things that 
don't have anything to do with the concerns that we have.
  Passing a surface transportation bill would put a large segment of 
the economy to bed. Think about it. For 5 years, that part of our 
economy will feel good about things. It will help States meet their 
infrastructure needs. It will reduce greenhouse gases and provide 
certainty and stability to keep it on the road to recovery.
  Show me another bill that has bipartisan support from labor, 
manufacturing, business, truckers, and State and local groups. I doubt 
any other piece of legislation will get this kind of support before the 
election. Do you know what we need? We need a sorbet to bring people 
together. Let the American people know that we hear them. And do you 
know something? We can get something done on a bipartisan basis, 
believe it or not. This legislation will create real jobs for 
Americans. It will be paid for and will put a major part of the economy 
to rest without adding to an already staggering deficit. It will 
eliminate the uncertainty about the future that is plaguing our country 
so we can move forward to provide brighter prospects for our children 
and grandchildren.
  I guess the most important guarantee is that the bill will give peace 
of mind to millions of workers in transportation and allied industries. 
They no longer will have to worry about unemployment compensation. They 
will have a job. They can pay their mortgage, buy a car, pay for their 
kids' education; and they can have the peace of mind that comes from 
having a job.

                               Exhibit 1

                     [From Newsweek, July 6, 2010]

                          Obama's CEO Problem

                          (By Fareed Zakaria)

       The American economy is sputtering, and we are running out 
     of options. Interest rates can't go any lower. Another burst 
     of government spending--whether a good or bad idea--looks 
     politically impossible. Is there anything that could protect 
     us from the dangers of stagnation or a double dip? Actually, 
     there is a second stimulus, one that could have a dramatic 
     effect on the economy--even more so than government spending. 
     And it won't add to the deficit.
       The Federal Reserve recently reported that America's 500 
     largest nonfinancial companies have accumulated an 
     astonishing $1.8 trillion of cash on their balance sheets. By 
     any calculation (for example, as a percentage of assets), 
     this is higher than it has been in almost half a century. And 
     yet, most corporations are not spending this money on new 
     plants, equipment, or workers. Were they to begin loosening 
     their purse strings, hundreds of billions of dollars would 
     start pouring through the economy. And these investments 
     would likely have greater effect and staying power than a 
     government stimulus.
       Now, let me be clear. I think there is a strong case for a 
     temporary and targeted government stimulus. Both people and 
     companies are being very cautious about spending. Right now, 
     government spending is what's keeping the economy afloat. 
     Without a second stimulus, state and local governments will 
     have to slash spending and raise taxes, which will produce a 
     downward spiral of higher unemployment, slower growth, lower 
     tax revenue, and a larger deficit. Joel Klein, the New York 
     City schools chancellor, told me that when the stimulus money 
     runs out at the end of this year, he will be forced to lay 
     off 5,000 teachers. Multiply that example a thousand times to 
     get a sense of what 2011 could look like.
       But government spending can only be a bridge to private-
     sector investment. The key to a sustainable recovery and 
     robust economic growth is to get companies to start investing 
     in America. So why are they reluctant, despite having mounds 
     of cash lying around? I put this question to a series of 
     business leaders over the past few days. They were all 
     expansive on the topic, and all wanted to stay off the 
     record, for fear of offending people in Washington.
       Economic uncertainty was the primary cause of their 
     caution. ``We've just been through a tsunami, and that 
     produces caution,'' one said to me. But in addition to 
     economics, they kept talking about politics, about the 
     uncertainty surrounding regulations and taxes. Some have even 
     begun to speak out publicly. Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of 
     General Electric, complained last Friday that government was 
     not in sync with entrepreneurs. The Business Roundtable, 
     which had supported the Obama administration, has begun to 
     complain about the myriad new laws and regulations being 
     cooked up in Washington.
       One CEO said to me, ``Almost every agency we deal with has 
     announced some expansion of its authority, which naturally 
     makes me concerned about what's in store for us for the 
     future.'' Another pointed out that between the new health-
     care bill, financial reform, and possibly cap-and-trade, his 
     company had lawyers working day and night trying to figure 
     out the implications of all these new regulations. Lobbyists 
     in Washington have been delighted by all this new activity. 
     ``[Obama] exaggerates our power, but he increases demand for 
     our services,'' the superlobbyist Tony Podesta told The New 
     York Times.
       Most of the business leaders I spoke to had voted for 
     Barack Obama. They still admired him. Those who had met him 
     thought he was unusually smart. But they all thought he was, 
     at his core, anti business. When I would ask them for 
     specifics, they pointed to the fact that Obama had no 
     businessmen or women in his cabinet, that he rarely consulted 
     with CEOs (except for photo ops), that he had almost no 
     private-sector experience, that he'd made clear that he 
     thought government and nonprofit work was superior to work in 
     the private sector. It all added up to a profound sense of 
     distrust.
       Some of this is a product of chance. The economic crisis 
     forced the government into expansions of its authority in 
     dozens of areas, from finance to automobiles. But precisely 
     because of these circumstances, Obama now needs to outline a 
     growth and competitiveness agenda that will seem compelling 
     to the American business community. This might sound like 
     psychology more than economics, and the populist left will 
     surely scream that the last thing we need to do is pander to 
     business. But in fact the first thing we need is for these 
     people to start spending their money--soon. As a leading New 
     York businessman, who had publicly supported Obama during the 
     campaign, said to me, ``Their perception is our reality.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.

                          ____________________