[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13453-13470]
[From the U.S. 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--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the urgent 
need for FEMA disaster funds, which is under this Burma joint 
resolution. I was very concerned when I heard some of my colleagues in 
the House of Representatives demanding that spending cuts be in 
exchange for supplemental disaster relief funds. Last night, we could 
not even pass a procedural vote to proceed to a bill that would provide 
this needed relief. This raises the question, What kind of country are 
we? Are we a country that takes care of the victims of disasters 
without hesitation or reluctance or are we a country that engages in 
misguided debates in the midst of a disaster when our citizens need us 
the most?
  My State of Minnesota has seen its fair share of natural disasters 
over the last few years. In the past year and a half, President Obama 
has declared seven Federal disasters in my State. I have seen the 
devastation Mother Nature can cause. I have seen communities that 
desperately need Federal assistance to recover. Northwest Minnesota has 
seen the phenomenon of 100-year floods turn into nearly annual events. 
Every spring, towns in the Red River Valley of the north hope that this 
year will not see another record-setting flood.
  This spring, I visited Georgetown, MN, and watched as they built 
emergency earthen levees to protect their town. The town had run out of 
the clay needed to build their levee, and the only choice left for them 
was to dig up their baseball field--their park, the diamond and the 
rest of the park. I watched as they dug up the heart of their community 
to protect their homes and businesses.
  That same day, I visited Oslo, MN. Flooding in the Red River turns 
Oslo into an island town. Residents are cut off from the rest of 
Minnesota for weeks as the Red River floods all of the surrounding 
roads. That night, as I left, I was one of the last cars to make it out 
of town before all the roads were closed, and its residents prayed that 
the temporary levees would hold.
  The residents of Georgetown and Oslo were doing what they could do to 
protect themselves, but not all disasters can be anticipated. On June 
17 of last year, storms brought 39 tornadoes, 26 funnel clouds, and 69 
reports of hail in Minnesota. Three Minnesotans died.
  The town of Wadena was hit the hardest; 234 homes were damaged. The 
roof was torn off the high school, and the county fairgrounds and 
community center were destroyed.
  After a disaster, Minnesotans have enough to worry about. It would be 
terribly unfair to pile politics on top of their worries. Natural 
disasters just happen. They are acts of God, and they happen without 
warning. Minnesotans need to know, when their State and local 
governments are overwhelmed, that their Federal Government will be 
there to help them recover. Every State needs to know that; we are one 
country. And they need to know we will not play politics with their 
lives and their livelihood.
  Many of the same people who are demanding that we offset the costs of 
natural disasters have voted year after year to fund our wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq without paying for them. Some have done this for 
nearly 10 years now. They have passed on well over $1 trillion in debt 
to our children to finance wars that have not been a surprise and that 
we could have and should have been budgeting for from the beginning.
  For the last 10 years, we have paid for wars by borrowing from 
countries such as China willing to finance our debt and by giant 
emergency spending bills, as they are called. That is unusual in 
American history, where wars usually prompt reevaluations of our fiscal 
policy.
  This spring, I introduced my Pay for War resolution to address this 
fiscal irresponsibility. My resolution would simply require that war 
spending be offset in the future. To be sure, there can be real 
emergencies that require the immediate exercise of military force with 
its attendant costs. That is why my resolution allows the offset 
requirement to be waived in such emergencies. But when you know year-in 
and year-out that you are going to be at war, you should budget for 
that and not just pass the costs on to your children.
  Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us well over $1 trillion, and we will 
be paying for years to care for the veterans who came back with the 
wounds of war. That did not singlehandedly create our deficit problem, 
but it sure made it a lot worse. Yet many of the same people who now 
demand that we must offset disaster spending for Americans who have 
lost their homes or are suffering otherwise have been fine with 
spending staggering sums of money on our wars--without offsetting them. 
Doesn't that seem just a little hypocritical? I wonder, what kind of 
mindset does it take to conclude that it is OK to pass on to your 
children the costs of war. Yet, when Americans have lost their homes or 
had their communities destroyed, it is not OK to respond to that 
emergency in an appropriate way? It just does not make sense to me.
  When Congress plans its spending, it can and should be accounted for 
through a budget. But when emergencies arise--and natural disasters are 
the quintessential emergency--we should not hesitate to act for the 
good of the American people. I believe the United States of America is 
a country that protects its citizens when they are at their most 
vulnerable. I hope this Congress will confirm that conviction by voting 
for emergency aid to the communities across this Nation that have been 
devastated by natural disasters.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as you no doubt know, the State of 
Vermont has been hit very hard by Hurricane Irene. The storm caused 
widespread flooding, resulting in a number of deaths, the loss of many 
homes and businesses, and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to 
our property and our infrastructure. I have visited many of the most 
hard hit towns, and I was shocked and moved by the extent of the 
damage. Many of these towns still today have very limited access 
because the roads and bridges that link them to the outside world have 
been destroyed. Irene will go down in history as one of the very worst 
natural disasters ever to hit the State of Vermont.
  Let me take this opportunity again to thank everybody who has lent a 
hand to help their friends and neighbors stricken by this disaster. I 
especially wish to commend and thank our emergency responders--they did 
a fantastic job--the Vermont National Guard and our local officials for 
all they are doing to assist communities and individuals in getting 
back on their feet.
  We still do not know the cost of this disaster, but let me share with 
you just a few preliminary figures, and really this is quite 
remarkable, remembering that Vermont is a State of about 630,000 
people, with approximately 200,000 households.
  Today, already more than 4,200 Vermonters--and by and large, those 
are households--have registered with FEMA. With 200,000 households, we

[[Page 13454]]

have over 4,000 that have already registered with FEMA.
  To date, there have been more than 700 homes confirmed as severely 
damaged or totally destroyed. Again, we have about 200,000 households 
and 700 homes have been confirmed as severely damaged or completely 
destroyed.
  More than 72,000 homes across the State were left without 
electricity. That is about one-third of the total. Thousands lost phone 
service. And in some areas, these services have still not been 
restored.
  The storm knocked out 135 segments of the State highway system as 
well as 33 State bridges. Thirteen communities were completely isolated 
for days. Thirty-five roads and bridges are still shut down, while many 
others are only open for emergency services.
  Hundreds of farms and businesses have been destroyed, undermining the 
fabric of our rural economy.
  Our Amtrak and freight rail services were completely suspended, as 
tracks literally washed into rivers. One of our two Amtrak lines is 
still down today.
  The State's largest office complex--we have a very large office 
complex in Waterbury, VT, near our State capital, in which 1,600 State 
employees go to work every day. It is the nerve center of the entire 
State. That complex was flooded. Those 1,600 workers have not been able 
to return to their offices, disrupting the ability of the State to 
deliver critical State functions.
  At least 90 public schools were either directly damaged or 
inaccessible because roads washed out and could not be opened on time. 
Five public schools remain closed until further notice.
  This is but a short list of the devastation experienced by the State 
of Vermont as a result of Hurricane Irene. I know that, as in times 
past, we will pick up the pieces and restore our homes and businesses. 
That is what Vermonters will do. Vermont communities stick together in 
hard times, and it has been absolutely amazing to see the volunteer 
efforts taking place from one end of the State to the other. What comes 
to mind now: police officers from the northern part of the State 
relieving their brothers and sisters in the southern part of the State 
who are under stress. We are seeing that in almost every area--
strangers coming to help people whose homes and businesses were 
flooded. But the simple fact is, Vermont can not do it alone, nor can 
any other State hard hit by disasters. The scale of what Hurricane 
Irene did is overwhelming for a State of our size. The Federal 
Government has an important role to play in disaster relief and 
recovery. Historically it has, and today it has.
  When our fellow citizens in Louisiana--and I see the Senator from 
Louisiana here--suffered the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, people 
in Vermont, in a very deep sense, were there for them. When the 
citizens of Joplin, MO, were hit by the deadly tornadoes, people on the 
west coast were there for them. When terrorists attacked on 9/11, 
everybody in America was there for New York City. That is what being a 
nation is about.
  The name of our country is the United--U-n-i-t-e-d--States of 
America, and if that name means anything, it means that when disaster 
strikes one part of the country, we rally as a nation to support our 
brothers and sisters.
  I would like to thank, in that context, Majority Leader Reid and 
Senator Landrieu for their commitment to drafting a disaster relief 
supplemental appropriations bill to provide $6.9 billion in disaster 
relief funding.
  At a time when funding is tight and every appropriation is subjected 
to even more intense scrutiny, the majority leader and Senator Landrieu 
are doing exactly the right thing in addressing these needs now. 
Senator Reid has my full support.
  While it is imperative for Congress to adequately fund FEMA's 
Disaster Relief Fund, the Federal response, in my view, should be more 
comprehensive, as it has been for past disasters of this scale.
  In particular, it is imperative to address the severe damage to roads 
and bridges by providing funding for the Federal Highway 
Administration's Emergency Relief Program. In Vermont alone, 
preliminary estimates to the federal-aid highway system are well in 
excess of $500 million and likely will be much more. That is an 
incredible amount of money for a small State such as Vermont. For a 
State that receives a total Federal apportionment of $210 million 
annually, the scale of damage relative to our State's ability to pay 
for it cannot be overstated.
  Similarly, it is important to provide sufficient emergency funding 
for programs such as community development block grants, the Economic 
Development Administration, the Emergency Conservation and Emergency 
Watershed Protection Programs at the Department of Agriculture, and the 
Disaster Loan Program at the Small Business Administration.
  Additionally, given the significant impact of the floods on the stock 
of affordable housing, it is very important to include an appropriation 
for the HOME program, as well as an additional disaster allocation of 
low-income housing tax credits. In Vermont, more than 350 mobile homes 
were destroyed or severely damaged, and many trailer parks will never 
reopen. In other words, we are going to have to make up for a lot of 
lost affordable and lower income housing.
  Let me conclude by saying this country has its problems. We all know 
that. But if we forsake the essence of what we are as a nation--and 
that is standing together when disaster strikes--if we forgo that and 
no longer live up to that, I worry very much about the future of 
America as a great nation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to support the remarks of the 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Franken, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. 
Sanders, who have described beautifully several different aspects of 
this debate. Senator Franken said: How is it that so many on the other 
side rush to support funding for wars and rebuilding in Afghanistan and 
Iraq and never ask for one dime to be offset, and yet at a time when 
Americans need help, they are not, let's say, leaning forward?
  I think there are a lot of Americans, not only from around the 
country but from their own States, who might be very puzzled by this 
sudden commitment to find offsets when it comes to rebuilding 
neighborhoods in Minnesota or Vermont or neighborhoods in Virginia or 
in Massachusetts or in other States, such as New York, which have been 
so hard hit. I think they will have some explaining to do, which is why 
I hope today, when we retake this vote, many of my friends on the other 
side will consider the leadership shown last night by Senators Blunt, 
Brown, Coats, Collins, Heller, and Snowe. These six Senators voted yes 
to move forward to try to find a way to find the political will to 
provide funding for disaster victims now, not wait but send them a 
powerful and strong and clear and unambiguous signal that the Senate 
and the Congress hear their cry. We know of their anxiousness and 
distress and we will respond and we will fight about how to pay for 
this later--but not now.
  They need to hear from us now that help is on the way. What they need 
to hear is that the fund will be replenished. What they need to hear--
the mayors, county commissioners, and Governors, Republicans and 
Democrats, from Governor Christie in New Jersey to Governor McDonnell 
in Virginia, who have given their support for funding disasters now--
what they need to do is not worry about us because they have enough to 
worry about. They have roads to rebuild and neighborhoods to rebuild 
and rivers to get in their banks.
  I heard today from Senator Schumer that in one of the canals--I think 
the Erie Canal--the lock is no longer connected to the canal. That is 
how powerful the water was. There is a lock and a canal, but they are 
not together. That is a problem not just for New York but for the 
entire northeastern transportation infrastructure, which affects us 
all.
  As a Senator from Louisiana, I, of course, feel particularly strong 
about

[[Page 13455]]

this because many of these Senators, Republicans and Democrats, came to 
our aid 6 years ago when Katrina hit--the worst natural and manmade 
disaster because, as you know, it wasn't just the hurricane that did us 
in down there on the gulf coast, it was the collapse of a Federal levee 
system that should have held and didn't and breached or broke or 
evaporated in 52 places and left a major metropolitan, internationally 
famed city underwater and literally fighting for its very survival--a 
metropolitan area of over 1.5 million people.
  This country rallied, after a lot of push from me and others and the 
private sector stood up and the nonprofit community was terrific. We 
still have literally thousands of volunteers still coming. It is so 
heartwarming. They are coming to Louisiana and to Mississippi to help 
us rebuild. I just drove the gulf coast 3 weeks ago--my husband and I. 
We said, let's go see the coast of Waveland and the coast of 
Mississippi and how it is coming along. I visit our neighborhoods 
regularly in south Louisiana to see how they are coming along. Still, 6 
years later, they are struggling. I don't think there is 1 house up for 
every 10 destroyed in Waveland today.
  That is how hard this work is. It doesn't happen automatically. 
Mississippi is working hard and Louisiana is working hard. I can only 
imagine how other States feel, such as Joplin, MO, which was hit by a 
tornado with winds that might have exceeded 250 miles an hour. That is 
unheard of.
  This is not time for my friends on the other side to sit on their 
hands or take out their green eyeshade and pencil and figure out how we 
are going to pay for it this week. We have all year to discuss that. We 
need to send them emergency funding now and learn how to pay for it 
later.
  This is what our map looks like. Green is too pleasant a color for 
this map. This indicates the destruction--or the number of disasters 
that have been declared by the President. For the first time, I 
believe, in our Nation's history, a disaster has been declared in every 
State but two--Michigan and West Virginia. Michigan technically could 
be declared a disaster because it has been under an economic disaster 
for several years but not a natural weather event. They most certainly 
are having very tough economic times in Michigan. West Virginia always 
has tough times as one of our poorest States. The whole country is in 
need.
  Why would the other side sit when America is lit up with disasters? 
We have to ask them to reconsider and move forward with the $7 billion 
help now. Not only is it the right thing to do and the moral thing to 
do and what Americans do for each other and what we should do, but it 
is all about--besides the moral aspect, which is obviously the most 
important--there being a real immediate economic benefit to this. If 
there was ever a jobs bill, this is it. I can promise you, having lived 
through this disaster recovery, it is like a shot in the arm for these 
communities. Literally, every single dollar that leaves our hands and 
goes to theirs will be spent immediately on food, clothes, and building 
materials. This is the most direct stimulative job creation we could 
do, and we need to do it now, this week, and send a strong signal to 
the House of Representatives: Don't fool around with disasters, and 
let's get this job done.
  Let me just show you that when people say you haven't provided 
funding for disasters, we have provided funding in our base bill for 
disasters. I see the Senator from California, and I will be just 2 
minutes more. I want people to know we have budgeted for disasters. I 
chair the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It is about a $42 
billion bill. As we know from marking the 9/11 anniversary this past 
Sunday, that department was created after 9/11 to respond to new 
threats. We pulled disparate agencies together--tried to pull them 
together. That is still a work in progress. We have $42 billion. So we 
budgeted for FEMA in that budget, in 2003, $800 million. It was 
obviously not enough. So then we went up because disasters were 
increasing to 128. In 2005, Katrina hit and completely shattered the 
model. The expenses of Katrina, Rita, and Wilma exceeded the entire 
budget of Homeland Security. It was $43 billion just for Katrina, Rita, 
and Wilma. The whole budget is only $42 billion.
  When people say pay for it out of our budget, we cannot do that. In 
some cases, it exceeds the entire budget of the country. It is not 
right to pay for past disasters with money we use to prepare for future 
disasters. We have beefed up base funding, but we don't have the level 
of base funding that potentially may be necessary. Now is not the 
time--we can see--now is not the time to keep the east coast waiting 
and Missouri waiting and the floods along the Mississippi River waiting 
and some people in California waiting. Texas, might I say, has had 
20,000 fires. This is not the time to keep the people of Texas waiting 
while we figure this out. Eventually, we are going to have to figure it 
out, but we don't have to do it this week.
  I see the Senator from California. I will yield to her, and then I 
will be happy to add a few more comments to the record.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not 
agreed to on the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 66 be agreed to; that 
the motion to reconsider be agreed to; that the time until 4:15 p.m. be 
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; and that at 
4:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture 
on the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 66.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are a lot of things going on on 
Capitol Hill this afternoon. We will make sure people have ample time 
to vote, as long as somebody doesn't carry it to extremes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader, before he 
leaves, I didn't hear all he said. Is this the fact that we are going 
to vote again on proceeding to a bill that will allow us to take up 
this emergency FEMA funding?
  Mr. REID. My friend is absolutely right. We need to do this. During 
the caucus that was completed, the Senators from New York indicated, 
for example, that the Mohawk River because of the storms changed 
course. The Erie Canal lock doesn't work. They are going to have to 
spend lots of resources to get the Erie Canal back, which handles 
commerce in that part of the State. That is just one thing.
  So the answer to my friend from California is, yes, we need to get 
people help now. People are desperate.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, taking back my time, I am very pleased we 
are having another chance at this because--just for the information of 
the public--we fell short of the votes required to take up this 
emergency bill. I just looked up the meaning of ``emergency'' in the 
dictionary. It says:

       A serious situation or occurrence that happens unexpectedly 
     and demands immediate attention.

  That was Webster's dictionary--no, it was dictionary.com. They have 
the best definition, and I want to repeat it. An emergency is a serious 
situation or occurrence that happens unexpectedly and demands immediate 
action.
  That isn't a Democratic definition or a Republican definition or an 
Independent Party definition. That is what an emergency is. To anyone 
who says don't worry; if an emergency happens we can take care of it 
just from our existing funds, that is not true.
  Senator Landrieu is our leader in the Appropriations Committee, and 
what she told us in a meeting we just had a few minutes ago is that 
there is support in her committee to fund FEMA--the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency. They are the ones, as everyone knows, who gets out 
there.
  I will never forget the wonderful James Lee Witt who headed FEMA 
during the days of Bill Clinton. He was out there with Senator 
Feinstein and myself when we had earthquakes, floods,

[[Page 13456]]

fires, and everything. There wasn't even a question. He knew we would 
rebuild. He knew he could make those commitments.
  I will just say this: Senator Landrieu held up a map that shows 48 
States having been hit by horrible emergencies, some that we never 
anticipated, such as a terrible earthquake right here in this area, 
floods that had not been experienced since the 1920s in Vermont, and 
California has had some horrible problems, and we have had some 
terrible emergencies. The President worked with the Governor, and we 
have these disaster declarations. But now, because the funds we set 
aside just weren't enough--and that isn't anybody's fault, it is an 
emergency, a serious situation that happens unexpectedly--we have to 
move.
  I have heard one of the Republican leaders in the House say we have 
to cut spending to pay for this emergency. He has recommended a place 
to cut that will cut jobs. It will cut jobs and it will stop us from 
being able to reinvigorate our manufacturing sector. That is 
ridiculous, unnecessary, and unwarranted. We all know we are going to 
do deficit reduction. We all know there is a smart way to do it. We did 
it when Bill Clinton was President. We stopped spending on things we 
didn't need, we invested in the things we knew would create jobs, and 
we asked the billionaires to pay their fair share--thank you very much.
  So let's not get this mixed up with deficit reduction. We are on a 
path to cut the deficit. We will cut the deficit. We know how to cut 
the deficit. We did it under Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget, we 
created surpluses, and we had the debt on the downswing. But don't 
confuse that with making sure our communities are OK.
  The Senators from Vermont spoke today at our luncheon, and one of 
them had tears coming down his face talking about a woman who was very 
ill in one of their communities who had to go to chemotherapy. It used 
to be a 5-minute drive in her car. Now she has to drive an hour and a 
half in order to get her treatment. So please don't talk about making 
someone like that suffer even more. Talk about what we can do as a 
nation when we pull together as Democrats, Republicans, and 
Independents.
  I spoke at a memorial in my hometown on September 11, and when I put 
together my remarks, I kept harping on the unity we had then.
  Well, we need to be true to ourselves and to our constituencies and 
to our beliefs, but there are moments in time when we come together as 
Americans. I don't know the party affiliation of that woman in Vermont, 
and I could care less. We need to help people who get stuck in these 
fires, in these disasters--in earthquakes, floods, and droughts. I do 
not believe the American people think when we have that kind of act of 
God--and that is the legal term as well as a true term--they are on 
their own.
  Last night, our leader tried to move to a bill that would allow us to 
take up assistance to these people in desperate need and keep our 
promises to those who were the victims of disaster in my home State and 
other States. I believe I am correct that Senator Landrieu told us we 
have 48 States since January 1. So I don't know, but I think my caucus 
is going to stand on its feet until this is done. We are not going to 
back off.
  This is one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice 
for all. I want to give justice to the people who are struggling, who 
are suffering, and who pay their taxes. I want to help the small 
businesses that are underwater. There is no liberty if someone is 
trapped in a house somewhere that is cut off because the road went out. 
The Senators from Vermont talked about the roads that are impassable--
impassable.
  So last night we had a bad vote. We didn't have enough votes. We need 
60 votes. I hope anyone listening to the sound of my voice will call 
their Senator and double-check how he or she voted because Hurricane 
Irene could cost more than $10 billion. It would make it 1 of the 10 
most costly disasters in U.S. history. We have seen record flooding on 
the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, and we have seen lives lost and 
farmland devastated.
  Senators spoke in our caucus about what happened to their farmers. 
They do not have crop insurance for all these crops. These particular 
crops were not covered. One of our colleagues said: It is bad enough we 
have to import oil from other countries; do we want to start importing 
our food from China and be reliant on other countries for our food 
supply?
  Right now, as I stand here, we have brave heroes--our firefighters--
battling wildfires in California and Texas. Here is a picture, because 
a picture is worth a lot of words--here is a picture of a fire raging 
out of control. The firefighters are as close as they can get to the 
flames. This one shows the Comanche Fire in Kern County. It has burned 
more than 29,000 acres and is threatening 2,300 homes in Stallion 
Springs, CA.
  The firefighters have gotten this fire 60 percent under control 
because they have had help from FEMA. They have been able to get help 
from the Federal Government. But the fire season in California has just 
begun. A lot of people don't realize that in our State September and 
October are the driest and the hottest months. So every wildfire 
threatens our communities just as this one. Right now FEMA barely has 
enough funds to get through the next couple of months. FEMA is running 
low on resources, and funds are so low they can't provide assistance 
for communities that are rebuilding from past disasters let alone 
respond to what is happening right now on the ground as we speak.
  I heard the Lieutenant Governor of Texas complaining--complaining--
about the situation in Texas, that they need more Federal help. Well, 
fine. He ought to call up his Senators and tell them to vote with us 
today to get that Federal help.
  We have more than $380 million in disaster recovery projects on 
hold--several in California. We had a tsunami March 11, 2011. We need 
the $5.3 million that has been promised to help communities in Del 
Norte, Monterey, and Santa Cruz, CA. This tsunami did damage.
  Let me show a picture from the 2010 mud slide. In January and 
February of 2010 in California we were hit by severe winter storms, 
with flooding and mud slides. You can see a very important road has 
been blocked, again, shutting off people. We have a lot of mountains, 
so we have to cut through those mountains. Calaveras, Imperial, Los 
Angeles County, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Siskiyou Counties were 
hit, and FEMA promised them funding. They met the criteria, they had 
the level of damage, and they are waiting. Right now they can't proceed 
without the $3.5 million they need to recover.
  So that is what this impasse is about. This isn't about make-believe. 
This is about real people who are cut off, shut off, businesses shut 
down, people laid off, and suffering. So let's not have a political 
spat around here. This isn't a partisan issue. When your neighbor's 
house is on fire, you don't haggle over the price of a garden hose. You 
get the hose out, connect it, and put the fire out.
  The good news is we have people from both parties who are starting to 
realize we have to do this. We have to send a message to the House. An 
emergency is an emergency. We have to put aside politics for the good 
of our country.
  So I will close where I started, with the dictionary definition of 
``emergency'': a serious situation or occurrence that happens 
unexpectedly and demands immediate action.
  We all agree we have serious situations in our great land. We all 
agree we didn't expect all of this. Although, if I might say with a 
different hat on--my hat as the chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee--we better understand that climate change is coming. We 
better understand what we are seeing now is going to be a new normal. 
It pains me to say we have done nothing in terms of addressing some of 
the causes. But guess what. Regardless of our views, as my kids would 
say, we are where we are, and it is what it is, and this is what it 
looks like in too many parts of our great Nation.

[[Page 13457]]

  So an emergency is a serious situation or occurrence that happens 
unexpectedly and demands immediate action, and I echo the call by our 
Democratic leader for immediate action at 4:15. I hope the phones will 
light up and everyone will call their Senators. It is time to vote yes 
on our vote at 4:15 and get on with this so people will know we stand 
with them in this greatest of nations; that we don't walk away from our 
people when they are suffering like this.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for 
her poignant, eloquent, and appropriate words. I thank the chair of our 
Homeland Security Subcommittee which handles FEMA disasters for the 
great work she has done.
  Mr. President, I spent several days, both this week and last week, 
visiting the places in upstate New York that were so badly damaged. 
Upstate New York is a large community. Without New York City and the 
suburbs we would still be about the eighth or ninth largest State, and 
the eastern half of upstate New York has been unexpectedly devastated 
not once but twice--first by Irene and then by Lee.
  It comes on top of an awful season. Because we have had so much rain 
and the ground has been so wet when these torrential rains occur--one a 
hurricane, one a tropical storm--no groundwater could be absorbed and 
it made things worse. Let me tell you a few of the things I have seen, 
just to share with my colleagues.
  We went to a small village in Schoharie County. Schoharie County is a 
beautiful agricultural, dairy county, and it is dotted by small towns 
like much of upstate New York. We have the third largest rural 
population in the country. Only Pennsylvania and North Carolina have 
larger rural populations than New York. We went down a beautiful 
street, a nice typical street. It could be a street you might see on an 
Ozzie and Harriet-type TV series. Every single house, street after 
street, had all its belongings piled in front. The water from Schoharie 
Creek had so overflowed its banks that the entire town was flooded, not 
by a foot of water but by 3, 4, 5, 6 feet of water. Out front you see 
the lives of the people whose lives have been so turned inside out by 
the torrent of water. They have lost thousands of dollars worth, each 
family, at a time they can ill afford it, but it is beyond that. It is 
the picture of grandma and grandpa at their wedding, the only one left. 
That is gone. It is the chair dad loved and sat in every night when he 
came home from work. It is their lives wiped out in a few sheer 
moments.
  In this town in Schoharie County and in most of New York State, 
almost all, the evacuation plans were amazing. We lost very few lives. 
In some counties, with huge amounts of devastation, no lives were lost 
in most. That is because of the great emergency work of our relief 
workers. As bad as Schoharie County was, because years ago FEMA had 
installed their warning system and warning sirens, people were able to 
get out of their homes and avoid being drowned. A dam that again we had 
provided some dollars for, Federal dollars, didn't break. Had it, it 
would have been even worse. But FEMA money to prevent disaster has 
helped strengthen the Gilboa Dam. So the creek went over it and around 
it but not through it, and that saved lives.
  I visited a place in Ulster County. These are vignettes. The town of 
Shandaken is beautiful, in the foothills of the Catskills. There is a 
major road that connects one part of Shandaken to the other, a county 
road. As you are driving along, it is newly paved macadam. All of a 
sudden you see the yellow strips to prevent you from going further and 
there is a 30-foot gash in the road, totally gone--30 feet. But what is 
astounding is it is 20 feet deep. At Esopus Creek, the waterway there 
changed its course, went through not just the macadam, not just the 
underlay that holds the road, not just the dirt fill of a foot or two, 
but through the bedrock, through 10 feet of bedrock. It will take years 
to bring this road back, and it is a cost the town of Shandaken can't 
afford. Our little towns, our little villages, our cities, even our 
counties of some significant population, can't absorb the millions and 
millions of dollars of damage. The total estimate by our Governor is we 
have suffered more than $1 billion of damage from Irene alone, and of 
course Lee moved slightly further west than Irene.
  I visited a lock in the Mohawk Valley and the city of Amsterdam. It 
had been very damaged. On a dam that a bridge went over, the metal of 
the bridge, the steel girders were twisted out of shape. But locks 9 
and 10 a little further downriver are no longer functioning because the 
torrent of rain created such swells that the Mohawk changed its course. 
So the locks are here and the river is here.
  The Erie Canal, one of our great pieces of history, is damaged so 
that it can't function. It won't function for quite a long time, even 
with Federal assistance--I don't know without Federal assistance what 
would happen--for months and even years.
  Then I went to Binghamton. Maybe that was the saddest of all. 
Binghamton is a city that has struggled. It had IBM in its early days. 
IBM was founded there. Nothing is left of IBM there, and the city is 
struggling. It is at the confluence of two river valleys, the 
Susquehanna and the Shenango, and it had been terribly flooded in 2006. 
Senator Clinton and I visited. It was awful--hundreds of homes, the 
sewage plant, the hospital, Lourdes Hospital. Incidentally, Lourdes 
Hospital wasn't damaged because, again, FEMA, with remediation money 
after 2006 helped supply some of the money for a wall that prevented 
the Shenango River from damaging the hospital. So it, thank God, is 
functioning.
  But then we went to the shelter, with 500, 600 people who had been 
there for days and have nowhere to go because they lived in rental 
apartments in downtown Binghamton, which was totally flooded. Every 
hotel and motel room in Binghamton is taken. There are very few rental 
apartments. They have nowhere to go--nowhere to go. Maybe FEMA will 
come in and bring trailers, as they did for your great State of 
Louisiana, Madam President. But without FEMA, I don't know what these 
people will do.
  They have food. The Red Cross is doing a great job. But they have 
nothing else. Their homes are gone, their belongings are gone, their 
clothes are gone. One gentleman came over to me and said, I would just 
like to try to get to my bank--which is closed and flooded--so I can 
take a few dollars out so I can buy some slippers. It is awful.
  What does this mean policywise? It means America cannot ignore these 
people. The people of New York, when Louisiana had trouble, didn't say: 
Our tax dollars shouldn't go to Louisiana. The people of New York did 
not say, when there were terrible tornados in Joplin: Our tax dollars 
should not go to Joplin. And I hope that the people in the rest of the 
country, represented by so many here on both sides of the aisle, will 
not say we are not going to step to the plate. America has always stood 
for disaster relief--always--because we are one Nation. We all have 
known that when God-given disasters, way beyond the powers of mankind, 
come, no single community can take care of it themselves, and that is 
why the Federal Government has traditionally stepped in and regarded it 
as an emergency and we have stepped in. We haven't had strings attached 
or conditions, or: Put it in this bill and we will give you a little 
money now and we will see what you need later.
  FEMA, by the way, has done a great job. I want to tip my hat to the 
people of FEMA who did such a wonderful job. But they are basically out 
of money. Right now in Missouri, none of the relief work continues 
despite the devastation in Joplin, because they only have money to deal 
with the immediate emergency of Lee and of Irene that hit New York 
State. The FEMA workers are doing great, and the people, the volunteers 
I saw everywhere, everyone is pulling together. Why can't

[[Page 13458]]

this Senate and this Congress pull together the way the people of our 
communities pull together when a disaster hits?
  We had one gentleman whose house was gone but he hadn't even been 
able to tend to it because he was a skilled worker and he was tending 
to the homes of others for 5 days. I saw him and his sisters, and they 
even had some humor about it. They were wearing shirts, ``Goodnight, 
Irene.''
  We have to pull together. We pay on an emergency basis, without 
looking for setoffs, for the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. We 
build bridges there, we build roads there, we give aid there. Now we 
are saying, When it comes to our American citizens, we are not going to 
do that any longer? What is going on?
  This afternoon we will vote simply on a resolution. To those of you 
not schooled in the arcane ways of the Senate, it is called a motion to 
proceed. It simply allows us to put legislation on the floor so we can 
aid these victims. And it can be amended. If some of our colleagues 
think this is wrong or that is wrong, they can debate it. But today's 
vote will say whether we should even begin to move to cover this, and 
we are getting it blocked. On last night's vote, six of our colleagues 
from the other side of the aisle joined us, but not enough.
  And so here it is. This is not me speaking, this is the AP, almost 
universally regarded as a nonbiased news source: Republicans block 
Senate disaster aid bill.
  What is going on? They don't block bridges and money for the war in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, to help rehabilitate those communities, and they 
are blocking this, for help in Missouri and Louisiana and New York and 
Vermont and the Missouri River Valley up through the Dakotas, the State 
of Missouri? What is going on here? This has never been a partisan 
issue.
  Republican Governors whose States have been hard hit have called for 
help. Chris Christie, hardly a wallflower, hardly someone who doesn't 
relish a partisan battle when he thinks it is right, but to his credit, 
when he thinks it is wrong:

       Our people are suffering now and they need support now. And 
     they, Congress, can all go down there and get back to work 
     and figure out the budget cuts later.

  That is Governor Christie.
  Governor Bob McDonnell, a well-known conservative:

       My concern is that we help people in need. I don't think 
     it's the time to get into the deficit debate.

  Are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle listening? Let us 
begin to debate this bill. Let us move forward, and let us fund FEMA 
fully. Let's not put something in the CR and say, Well, in a month from 
now we will debate it. We all know CRs get tied up. FEMA has run out of 
money now--now. So this vote will be a vote that determines whether we 
keep the American tradition of helping one another in a time of 
disaster here in America; and a vote no says, no, I don't want to do 
it. A vote no says I am not going to proceed to even debate the bill. A 
vote no is against the greatness of America, in my opinion, because we 
always have stood for helping people, being one Nation, under God, 
indivisible. When a part of the country desperately needs help, we all 
pull together to help them, knowing that if, God forbid, it happens to 
us down the road, the Nation will be there for us.
  I was just at the 9/11 memorial service, the tenth anniversary. It 
was a time when we all pulled together. George Bush did not ask, when 
we were in the Oval Office and said New York desperately needed $20 
billion, Is it a blue State? How are we going to pay for it? He stepped 
to the plate. He was a patriot and he said: This is what America must 
do.
  That was a manmade disaster, an awful disaster. Far more lives were 
lost than now. But it is not a different issue. This is a disaster, and 
people are hurting and people need help. The attitude of President 
George Bush hopefully will be the attitude of our colleagues across the 
aisle, that they won't block the bill, that they won't find seven 
excuses, or say, We will give you a little of the money a month from 
now in a continuing resolution, when the money is desperately needed 
now.
  In conclusion, this vote is a crucial vote that says: Are we the same 
American people we have always been, who look out for one another, who 
help one another in a time of need, regardless of party and regardless 
of bickering and everything else? This vote will determine it. I urge a 
strong bipartisan vote for the resolution that we will vote on in an 
hour.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from New York for those very 
descriptive and moving comments about his State, and particularly the 
part of his State that we don't hear a lot about. That is why we depend 
on the Senators to speak the truth about what is going on and what they 
are seeing. I know the Senator from New Jersey is here to speak, but 
pictures are worth a thousand words and I wanted to put this chart up. 
I hope the cameras can grasp the horror of all four of these pictures. 
What is I think most telling about them is they are all from a 
different State in a different part of the country.
  This picture is of Joplin, MO. I haven't myself personally been to 
Joplin, but before the year is out I will go, and I think other 
Senators should go see what has happened in one of the great tornado 
disasters in the history of our country.
  This picture, which almost brings tears to my eyes because it looks 
exactly as Lake Pontchartrain looked in the city of New Orleans, I 
believe is from Irene, from North Carolina. It is heartbreaking. I am 
sure this is a family who was on the coast, and everything they had is 
destroyed. It really is quite moving.
  This is a picture on the Mississippi River, I am not sure in what 
county. But when our Senators come to the floor to talk about rural 
areas and the devastation, at least in Missouri, you can walk down the 
street and find a neighbor whose home was equally destroyed and at 
least get a hug. Out here in these rural areas, you are by yourself. It 
could be miles between your house and your neighbor's home. You cannot 
even find the church where you worshipped together on Sunday.
  Here is Texas. We prayed for the rain last week to go west to Texas. 
It hit Louisiana again. They are the ones who need it, but they cannot 
get it. There were 20,000 fires in Texas. There were thousands of homes 
burned up.
  Before everybody starts to think, what is the great help--yes, FEMA 
is a great help. But let me put this in perspective. You get $2,000 a 
family--$2,000--to help buy a toothbrush, maybe a few pieces of 
clothing, some initial toiletries, et cetera, and you get $30,000 for 
some immediate needs. It is not as if we are trying to send people $1 
million a house. How can people stand in the way of $2,000 for 
immediate needs and $30,000? If you had a house that was worth $150,000 
and you ran a little printing business and you lost both, the most you 
could get out of this bill is $30,000. Do they think we are being too 
generous? It is minimum support. I want to make that clear--minimum 
support.
  Some people are lucky enough to have insurance. If the insurance 
company steps up and does not try to pull out the fine print, as they 
did in Katrina, and come up with 100,000 excuses why they can't fund 
the homes, maybe they will get homes. This isn't us just trying to dump 
millions of dollars on people who do not deserve it.
  That is what I wanted to say. I will have more to say, but I think 
these pictures speak 1,000 words. Again, FEMA is out of money. I don't 
want anybody coming here to vote to say: I didn't vote because FEMA has 
money. They are out of money. They are stopping projects all over the 
country because all they can basically do is have enough money to pay 
those immediate needs on the east coast. Joplin, MO, has been told: No, 
you have to wait. Louisiana, on the gulf coast, has been told: No, you 
have to wait. We are happy to wait a few weeks. We understand the 
dilemma. But this cannot go on week after week, month after month. We 
have to pass a bill for an entire year and not have to come back to it.

[[Page 13459]]

  I see the Senator from New Jersey on the floor, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the passion of the Senator 
from Louisiana and her personal experience from Louisiana on the 
consequences of disaster. She speaks from firsthand knowledge and 
speaks for all of us in this respect.
  I rise today because we as a nation have always come together to help 
each other in times of crisis without question, without politics. In my 
20 years between the House and the Senate, I never questioned, in the 
midst of a disaster somewhere in the country--which, fortunately, for 
the most part has not been New Jersey--casting my vote to support those 
fellow Americans who found themselves in urgent need because of natural 
disasters having nothing to do with any control they had whatsoever.
  This is not the time to politicize disaster aid. It is not who we are 
or what we expect this Nation to be. Our goal when disaster strikes is 
to unleash the full force of the Federal Government to help families in 
trouble and communities in ruin, not to score some political points by 
slowing relief and calling it responsible fiscal policy. In the wake of 
a storm, when the floodwaters rise, when the winds blow, when the storm 
surge rushes in, we should not be rallying our political base; we 
should be rallying the full force of emergency responders to help.
  In the last few weeks, the east coast has suffered an earthquake, a 
hurricane, and some of the worst flooding my State has seen in years--a 
100-year flood. I received a letter from a constituent in Moors 
Landing, in Monmouth County, who wrote:

       Dear Senator Menendez,
       I live in Moors Landing, a development of homes in Howell 
     Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey. Our community is in 
     great need of assistance. One section of our community was 
     devastated by flooding from an overflow of the Manasquan 
     inlet on August 20 and 21. Homes and property were destroyed, 
     and the families and lives of those homeowners were terribly 
     disrupted.
       Then, after the first calamity, Hurricane Irene brought 
     further destruction to this same section of our community. 
     But in addition to that repeated damage, Irene brought damage 
     to a second section of our community.
       Hurricane Irene, in addition to the added homes and 
     property damage, forced many of our residents to be evacuated 
     in order to avoid drowning in the rushing flood waters. This 
     second catastrophe added to the misery and hardship suffered 
     from our affected homeowners who lost their furniture, their 
     carpets and flooring and everything in the first floor of 
     their homes, their furnaces and air conditioning units, and 
     all of them have to tear down their water damaged walls to 
     avoid mold and dry out their homes.
       All of this devastation and loss comes at a time when our 
     people already are finding it difficult to make ends meet. 
     These people have no money to take on the added costs of 
     repair; and now there is no one who would even buy their 
     homes. So they are stuck with a true nightmare scenario--no 
     money to fix things and no way to sell the homes. We need 
     your help. I understand Federal funding from FEMA is 
     available, and we urgently need your assistance in securing 
     these funds for our neighbors so that these people can move 
     on with their lives.

  That constituent, a fellow American, deserves to know that her 
government will be there to help, that relief is on the way, not held 
up in Congress to satisfy some ideology or political agenda.
  When disaster strikes, Americans come together. We do not hesitate. 
We do not ask why. We do not wait. We rush to our neighbors and do all 
we can to help them rebuild. After the damage and flooding Irene 
caused, we came together as we always do--as a community, each of us 
working together to help others.
  I had the opportunity to tour the flooded areas of New Jersey with 
the Army Corps of Engineers. Then we went to Patterson. This is a 
picture of Patterson, NJ, and these responders are on a boat, with the 
President and Governor Christie of my State, to assess that damage.
  After 5 days of flooding, there were still those who were homeless, 
trying to put the pieces of their lives back together. As we flew over 
the area with the President that day, we could see mud lines on homes 
indicating how high the floodwaters had reached. Then, tragically, we 
saw home after home where everything, up and down some streets--all the 
personal belongings of residents had been put out as trash, cherished 
pieces of their lives lost, ruined.
  Paterson was particularly hard hit. Ironically, the river that once 
fueled the economy of Paterson washed out bridges, dams along the river 
were badly damaged, and power was knocked out for days. With the latest 
rains, flooding again took place even after Hurricane Irene. So the 
water may have receded, but the consequences have not.
  We have been very pleased with the Federal response so far, a 
response that should have nothing to do with politics, nothing to do 
with political budget debates in Washington, and everything to do with 
the real needs of families in Paterson, in Lincoln Park, in Wayne, and 
in so many other places in New Jersey and across this country. Some of 
these people have to start over, start their lives over.
  FEMA, along with other Federal, State, and local officials, needs the 
resources necessary not only to move in as quickly as possible to deal 
with the crisis but the resources necessary to deal with the 
aftermath--politics notwithstanding--because when one community is in 
trouble, we are all in trouble, and we pull together.
  Frankly, I cannot believe there are those in this Chamber and in the 
other body who see this as a political opportunity, those who would 
focus on the politics of relief even in the face of families who have 
watched their lives wash away, their property in ruins, and their 
communities devastated.
  New Jersey suffered severe damages and left families, already 
struggling, with another challenge. It is up to all of us to help them. 
Irene was a powerful storm, but what we have learned is that there is 
nothing more powerful than what unites us as a community. It is in 
times such as these, when families and small businesses are trying to 
recover, that we appreciate the role of professional, well-equipped, 
well-trained local, State, and Federal boots on the ground.
  In my view, one of the most legitimate and nondebatable roles of 
government--clearly, I have heard many of my colleagues refer to this 
in a different context--is the security of our people. If you are 
homeless as a result of a disaster, you have a security problem. In my 
view, one of the most legitimate and nondebatable roles of government 
is to provide a helping hand to a citizen when there is nowhere else to 
turn. Yes, we have to do all we can to keep our economy moving, create 
jobs, and reduce the deficit. We have to make cuts where we can. But in 
the face of disasters, we cannot say no to families who have lost 
everything. We cannot say no when floodwaters are rising, homes are 
lost, possessions are piled in the streets, and families are picking 
through the mud to put whatever pieces of their lives they can find 
together once again. We are not a nation that ties helping them recover 
to the politics of the moment. We are not a nation that leaves our 
neighbors alone in the time of tragedy. We do not stand down in times 
of crisis, we step up.
  We in New Jersey are grateful to the President for coming to Paterson 
and to Wayne and for the rapid and effective response of FEMA and State 
and local officials, after Irene, to families who have lost so much. 
But any attempt to slow relief to these families is, in my view and in 
the view of Governor Christie of my State--any attempt to politicize 
this disaster to advance an ideology at the expense of all we stand for 
as a nation is not acceptable.
  The President said we will do what is necessary to respond. Senator 
Lautenberg and I took the same view, and Governor Christie took the 
same view. We don't want to get into the politics of budget debates or 
whether this should be offset later on. That is a question for later 
on. The question right now for people who find themselves without a 
home so we can knock on that door is, Is the Federal Government--the 
one I pay my taxes to, the one I swear an oath of allegiance to every 
day--is it going to respond to me now?

[[Page 13460]]

  I did not question the need to respond to tornadoes in Joplin, floods 
in the Dakotas, or the terrible consequences of the hurricane in 
Louisiana or any other place in this country, and I do not expect that 
my colleagues now will say no to their fellow Americans who need help 
now in New Jersey and in other States along the east coast. It is 
simply not the American way to not support the funds necessary and deal 
with the challenges these families have now.
  Let's keep our eye on the ball. There are families in real need, 
really struggling in ways we cannot imagine. We have a real ability to 
put politics aside and do what is right. We will have that opportunity 
very shortly. Let's do what is right. Let's get this money to the 
Federal agencies that can help turn around these people's lives. That 
is the American way. That is the vote we will have later today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for adding his 
strong and powerful voice to this. I wished to clarify a few points 
that I think are important for people to understand.
  First, for those who might be engaging in or listening to this 
debate, we are going to have a vote in about an hour or so, and if we 
do not get 60 votes, we will likely not be able to replenish the FEMA 
coffers that are virtually empty. The Federal fiscal year, to remind 
everyone, does not start January 1. It starts October 1. We run on a 
fiscal year, not a calendar year. We are coming to the end of our year 
in September, this month. FEMA has run out of money in the last 11 
days. I wish to submit for the Record--this is just an 11-day count, 
$387 million worth of projects that have been halted because FEMA is 
stretching the few dollars it has have left to cover the emergency 
needs, literally, of meals and shelter for the people on the east 
coast.
  In other parts of the country where there are jobs underway, 
rebuilding highways, rebuilding libraries, rebuilding schools, 
rebuilding sewer systems, water systems, et cetera, those projects have 
been sent a pink slip, basically, from Washington saying cease and 
desist. You know what the worst thing about that is, it is not 
necessary if we would immediately act and refill this coffer so these 
projects can get started immediately. What is very bad about this pink 
slip is that this $387 million worth of projects, many of these 
projects have already been done by small businesses, private sector 
contractors. This is not money owed to the government. This is money, 
in large measure, owed to private small business people or medium-sized 
business people or, in some cases, large businesses that are in the 
process of fixing the library. In the last 11 days, because of some 
ideology here, some sort of political party agenda, they have received 
a pink slip that says: Stop work.
  If these companies that have already purchased the lumber or 
purchased the concrete or purchased the pipe to build the project do 
not get paid soon, they will go bankrupt. Believe me, I have companies 
in my State that have gone bankrupt because the Federal Government is a 
notoriously late payer even under good conditions. This is not what I 
would describe as a good condition. This is a terrible condition. So 
the other side needs to think about the politics of this. This is not 
just a moral question, it is a business question.
  There are many dimensions to this question. We have basically sent a 
cease-and-desist order to $387 million worth of contractors and 
businesses that might not be in New Jersey or affected in Vermont but 
are working on a project. They have a work order from the Federal 
Government, only to find out, sorry, Congress cannot decide how to pay, 
so good luck trying to make your payroll on Friday. This is wrong.
  The second argument I would like to make to the other side when they 
are considering this important and significant vote is, when the other 
side says to me: Well, we need to budget for it, I would like to budget 
for it, but I do not have a crystal ball. I think I am a pretty good 
Senator, but one thing I do not do very well is predict the future. I 
sometimes have instincts about it, but I am not a fortune teller, and 
one would have to be a fortune teller to see what is happening.
  This is not Mary Landrieu's opinion. These are the facts. In 2003, we 
needed less than $1 billion to fund all disasters. It was a relatively 
mild year. Had we put $2 billion in the budget, we would have had $1 
billion extra. The next year it jumped to $5 billion. The next year it 
went up to $45 billion. It broke all records. The next year it went 
down to $12 billion. The next year it fell to $8 billion. How are we on 
the Appropriations Committee--Danny Inouye is a fabulous chairman from 
Hawaii and Thad Cochran is a terrific Senator from Mississippi, but 
neither Thad Cochran nor Daniel Inouye can predict a year and a half 
out what the disasters are going to be and budget accordingly.
  Even if you can't motivate yourself--some people here--to vote for 
people because they need help, just look at the argument on the 
finances. We do not know in advance. We could set aside some money, 
maybe more than the $1.8 billion we have. I do not disagree there, but 
we still would have missed it every year except for 2 years. Even if we 
had put $5 billion in the base budget, we would have still missed it. 
We cannot predict it. Should we set aside $25 billion every year?
  The point is, when disasters happen, just fund what we have committed 
to, which is a base benefit package to people. As I said, no one is 
going to get rich off $2,000 and $30,000 to help people get themselves 
started. Hopefully, their insurance comes in, nonprofits step up to 
help. They can maybe dig into a little bit of their savings.
  This is as much a jobs bill, it is as much a business bill as it is a 
bill that is the right moral thing to do for people. It is not because 
Democrats do not know how to budget. I am so tired of being lectured on 
the other side about Democrats don't know how to budget. I would like 
to remind everyone the last time this budget was balanced, we had a 
Democratic President. Democrats can balance budgets. I was a State 
treasurer for 8 years, and I did a lot to help my State get back on a 
strong financial footing. I am proud of my record and so is every 
Democrat here. It is impossible to predict in advance.
  What we could do is what we always do, send help. Help these 
companies and help these people get jobs, put people to work in 
America. Do the right thing. Over the course of the next 6 months, as 
our big committee is working and trying to figure out lots of big 
problems we have--and this is one of them--we can have time to sit down 
and figure out, based on this reality, what we should do. If anyone has 
a suggestion, please come to the floor now.
  My committee has been talking about this for 6 months, and I wish to 
say thanks to my cochair, Senator Coats, who serves with me on the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Committee. We have been thinking about 
this for 6 months. He voted yes yesterday because he knows there are 
not many good options out there. Can we find a way? Yes. Can we find it 
this week? No. We might not even be able to find it in the next 30 
days, but I am confident that over the course of the next month and 
year we will find a way to pay for it.
  Right now people in New Jersey and Vermont and Louisiana and Missouri 
and Minnesota and North Dakota do not want to listen to this. They want 
to tell their kids: Yes, we are going to rebuild. They want to tell 
their employees: Yes, we are going to put our business back. They do 
not need to listen to this and they should not have to.
  I am urging a strong vote at 4:15. Again, we have, in the last 11 
days, $387 million in projects that have been stopped.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the summary of 
projects on hold due to the immediate needs financing decision as of 
September 9, 2011.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Summary of Projects on Hold Due to Immediate Needs Financing Decision 
                        as of September 9, 2011

Alaska.........................................................$378,971

[[Page 13461]]

Alabama.......................................................7,378,107
Arkansas......................................................3,659,364
Arizona.........................................................464,032
California....................................................9,357,469
Connecticut.....................................................176,225
Florida.....................................................*65,879,997
Georgia.......................................................2,698,257
Guam..........................................................2,205,346
Hawaii..........................................................322,892
Iowa........................................................*67,500,580
Illinois......................................................2,930,339
Indiana.......................................................1,173,802
Kansas........................................................1,596,523
Kentucky......................................................3,405,166
Louisiana...................................................*55,534,418
Massachusetts...................................................256,659
Maine............................................................73,640
Minnesota.........................................................7,334
Missouri......................................................4,259,033
Mississippi.................................................*69,992,729
Montana.......................................................4,093,487
North Carolina...................................................92,517
North Dakota................................................*17,596,388
Nebraska......................................................1,373,076
New Hampshire...................................................129,251
New Jersey....................................................1,293,220
New Mexico.......................................................88,333
New York......................................................3,343,581
Ohio............................................................286,364
Oklahoma.....................................................10,947,565
Oregon............................................................8,831
Pennsylyania....................................................577,858
Puerto Rico...................................................1,952,676
Rhode Island.....................................................80,300
South Dakota....................................................470,895
Tennessee...................................................*37,277,063
Texas.........................................................5,153,160
Utah............................................................765,107
Virgin Islands..................................................220,229
Vermont.........................................................734,275
Washington....................................................1,028,188
West Virginia...................................................477,992
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    Total..................................................$387,241,239

*Small business.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Every day this list is going to get bigger and bigger. 
All this is is a pink slip to someone unrelated to the current 
emergency. They are working on emergencies from 3 years ago and now 
they are being put out of work because of this bullheadedness that is 
coming from someplace. I hope we can break through on that today.
  Again, these pictures are difficult to see, but I think it is worth 
seeing them again. This is what people look like who are listening to 
this debate--this family sitting on those steps. Someone, either they 
or their neighbor, is going to say: Did you hear Senator Landrieu on 
the floor? Did you hear the Senate debate? Why would the Senate of the 
United States be arguing whether we can get aid? Aren't we building in 
Afghanistan and Iraq and we are not going to build in North Carolina? I 
think they are sitting on the Outer Banks of North Carolina thinking: 
What is going on in the Congress? People are going to be angry, believe 
me.
  I do not know what we are going to tell them. What are we going to 
tell them if we vote no on this? Are we going to tell them we do not 
have the money? Are we going to tell them we cannot figure out how to 
budget it?
  We will figure it out later. We have to, eventually. Every bill we 
enter into has to be paid for, eventually. You know that, Mr. 
President. We do not have to decide that this week.
  Let's tell them yes. Let's do the right thing and let's get help to 
Joplin, MO. Let's get help to our rural communities that sometimes get 
very forgotten. Let's get help to our folks in North Carolina and to 
our people in Texas who have been suffering terribly over this, and 
let's do it now.
  Let me share another quote that I think is particularly significant. 
The Senator from New York talked about Gov. Bob McDonald, a 
conservative Republican from Virginia. He said fund it now. Another 
Republican Governor, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said:

       Let's fund it now. It is not a Republican or Democratic 
     issue.

  I wish to read what Gov. Tom Ridge, the former Governor of 
Pennsylvania and the first Secretary of Homeland Security, a staunch 
Republican, said:

       Never in the history of the country have we worried about 
     budget around emergency appropriations for natural disasters, 
     and, frankly, in my view, we shouldn't be worried about it 
     now. We are all in this as a country. And when Mother Nature 
     devastates a community, we may need emergency appropriations 
     and we ought to just deal with it and then deal with the 
     fiscal issues later on.

  He is a very influential leader in our country and was the first 
Secretary of Homeland Security. He ran the FEMA budget. He understands 
what is at stake.
  Please, let's not make this a partisan issue. Let's get a strong 
bipartisan vote; the Senate can be very proud of that; and then we can 
negotiate the issues with the House. I will work with the House 
leadership to say there are several ways we can pay for this. We can 
debate it over the course of the next several months and maybe come up 
with a new way. I know one thing we cannot do is take it out of the 
Department of Homeland Security. Our budget would be devastated, and it 
wouldn't be fair to all the perimeters and the security and our ports 
and our firefighters to use their money to pay for past or present 
disasters. We could potentially find the money somewhere under some new 
mechanism, but let's not make the people of the east coast, the people 
of Joplin, MO, and the people of Louisiana, in the floods that we have 
just gone through ourselves, scapegoats. We will figure out there is 
time for debate later, but the time for action is now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for up to 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened carefully to our colleague 
from Louisiana and note a particular distinction that her State brings; 
that is, the number of natural disaster problems that State has had and 
how diligently Senator Landrieu has fought to make sure that when we 
have a problem, we ask the government with a clear conscience to do its 
share in helping us cure the problem we get.
  On Sunday just passed, we marked the 10th anniversary of the 
September 11 terrorist attacks. On that terrible day, 10 years ago, we 
were reminded that when tragedy strikes one part of our country, 
Americans pull together to respond. When our enemies and Mother Nature 
sends us their worst, Americans are at our best.
  In the wake of recent storms across the country, including Hurricane 
Irene in my State of New Jersey, we see this same American spirit of 
cooperation coming through. Unfortunately, we learned that the spirit 
of neighbor helping neighbor stops with our Republican colleagues. We 
saw a shameful display where all but a handful of Republican Senators 
voted to block consideration of an emergency disaster relief bill. They 
chose not to let our government do its share in curing a problem that 
enveloped much of the country. They have chosen to use disaster relief 
victims as pawns in their political gamesmanship.
  Make no mistake. The disaster relief bill is a critical lifeline to 
the families who are struggling to pick up the pieces of their 
shattered lives after Hurricane Irene.
  Early estimates suggest this violent storm could be 1 of the 10 
costliest storms in U.S. history, with damages that exceed $10 billion. 
This is some of the worst flooding in a century, and it is a serious 
emergency.
  Hurricane Irene produced devastating floods in New Jersey and other 
States along the east coast. A major tropical storm followed days later 
causing even more damage. In New Jersey alone at least 11 people were 
killed, and countless families were displaced after their homes were 
destroyed.
  President Obama has declared the entire State of New Jersey--all 21 
counties--a Federal disaster area. Earlier this month, the President 
came to New Jersey to see firsthand the destruction that Hurricane 
Irene has caused. I joined him on his tour of Paterson, NJ, my 
hometown, and one of the cities hit hardest by flooding. We witnessed 
unforgettable images. The streets and sidewalks were covered in mud, 
and inside homes--I saw it personally--mud covered the second floor of 
some. That is how deep the water was. Fourteen-foot crests followed 
what at times were very tepid streams. Walls were stained by high water 
marks. This picture shows some of the damage in the city of Paterson. 
Perhaps it is difficult to see, but what we are looking at is water--
water everywhere--and it is entirely enveloping homes and businesses 
and the community.

[[Page 13462]]

  Paterson is not alone. This is a scene in Boonton, NJ, where we see 
the road was washed away and people can't move from one part of the 
town to the other.
  In Cranford, NJ, we see another disaster scene. Here we have what 
looks like debris piled up. This debris was furniture. It included 
beds, cribs, and refrigerators. It included all kinds of things--people 
putting their wares out on the front lawn, furniture never able to be 
used again, the houses themselves often not being able to be entered 
again.
  This picture shows the damage in Bound Brook, NJ, and the high level 
of the water as it compares to the buildings constructed there. With 
Hurricane Irene, we witnessed nature's power to destroy. Now it is time 
to see the Federal Government's capacity to repair, rebuild, and 
restore.
  Even before this hurricane struck, FEMA's primary source of funding 
for cleanup and recovery--the Disaster Relief Fund--was barely on life 
support. The tornadoes and flooding that wreaked havoc across our 
Midwest and South earlier this year, along with wildfires and other 
disasters, depleted the funds. That is why, in my role as vice chairman 
of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I helped to craft 
a bill to replenish the Disaster Relief Fund.
  The Appropriations Committee approved this bill last week, and 
majority leader Harry Reid understood the urgency of the situation and 
brought emergency disaster relief legislation to the floor right away 
for us to consider--putting money into the relief fund so we can deal 
with the tragedies that have hit so many people in so many places.
  What happened in the Senate yesterday? Republicans filibustered our 
attempts. I think everybody across America has learned about what the 
word ``filibuster'' means. It means stopping things, blocking things. 
They blocked our attempts to even allow an emergency disaster relief 
bill to be considered. What kind of foul play is that? They talk about 
saving money, and they talk about cuts. It is outrageous.
  Some of them have claimed the bill would cost too much. But we all 
know the widespread damage that occurred demands a strong Federal 
response. We have to provide FEMA with the resources it needs to help 
New Jersey's people, businesses, and communities recover and rebuild 
from this disaster.
  This bill also helps disaster victims in all 50 States--not just the 
States affected by Hurricane Irene. Every State has experienced 
disaster in recent years, and FEMA is working in every State to help 
these communities rebuild and recover. So if we fail to pass this bill, 
every State is going to suffer because if we can't help one State, we 
can't help any States, and that is an unacceptable condition.
  The fact is, the victims of Hurricane Irene and other recent 
disasters have enough to worry about. They shouldn't have to also 
wonder if their government is going to stand behind them.
  I wish to be clear. The Federal Government plays a critical role in 
disaster relief efforts, and we have a responsibility to provide 
funding to help communities rebuild and to make sure the job gets done 
well.
  For decades the Federal Government has had a track record of 
extending a helping hand to victims of natural disasters. This includes 
more than $11 billion in emergency funding to help Texas, Alabama, 
Louisiana, and other States recover from hurricanes or flooding in 
2008. Last year we approved more than $5 billion in emergency funding 
to help States such as Tennessee and Kentucky recover from floods. The 
people in these States desperately needed our help, and Congress 
responded. We have to do the same now.
  It is hard to understand why people on the Republican side in the 
House and in the Senate don't step up to their responsibilities. What 
are those responsibilities? Those responsibilities are to protect and 
secure the safety of our people. Without that, the country isn't quite 
what it should be by all measures. We have to do what we have to do, 
now.
  As we fight our way out of a recession, this is no time to play 
politics and penalize people who are struggling. Moments such as this 
demand shared sacrifice. We face serious challenges in our country, but 
we cannot put a price on a human life and say, well, if it costs a lot 
over there, we are not going to do that to save people. Nothing is more 
important than keeping our families, our economy, and our communities 
safe.
  So I call on my colleagues to put aside the Republican cloak, put 
aside the savings we think we can make from avoiding our 
responsibilities because no money is going to be saved. The costs are 
going to be there, and the misery is going to be extended.
  So I urge us all to join to approve this bill. Few of us, if any, are 
exempt from the possibility of disaster in our States. So let's put the 
politics aside and make sure our first priority is helping people--
helping individuals, helping families, helping the communities--and 
keeping functions going to permit our society to work.
  With that, I close out my comments with wonderment as to what we have 
seen with the hard shell, heartless attitude about providing FEMA with 
the money to repair the results of disaster. It is almost 
incomprehensible. We heard a cry from one of the leaders on the 
Republican side in the House to say: Well, we first have to find the 
money to pay for it.
  Like the Devil, we do. We don't do that when we see forests being 
ravaged by fire. We don't do it when we are attacked by outside 
enemies. We don't do it those times, and we ought not to do it now.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, 
and the others who have come to the Senate floor this afternoon to talk 
about the importance of getting help for people who have been hit by 
disasters.
  A little more than 2 weeks ago, Tropical Storm Irene came barreling 
through New Hampshire just as she came barreling through Vermont and 
New York and New Jersey and North Carolina and so many other States 
along the east coast. The storm dumped as much as 8 inches of rain in 
parts of New Hampshire, and the damage to property and infrastructure, 
especially in the northern part of our State, was significant. The 
surging waters and high winds destroyed roads and bridges, damaged 
thousands of homes, left nearly 200,000 without power, devastated 
businesses, and ruined crops.
  While the devastation was terrible, I wish to begin by commending 
those dedicated first responders and emergency personnel who kept our 
residents safe and well-informed throughout the storm. I am also 
grateful for the tireless work of road crews, utility workers, and 
volunteers from across New Hampshire who began helping families and 
communities rebuild just as soon as the storm passed. Their hard work 
and community spirit are deeply appreciated.
  For many of the towns hit by Irene, this is the third major flooding 
event of the year. It is the 7th in the last 2 years. These have been 
devastating floods.
  I have a picture of the town of Plymouth, a beautiful community in 
northern New Hampshire where Plymouth State University is. What we can 
barely see in this section of the picture is the new ice hockey arena 
for Plymouth State that was just completed about a year ago. It is a 
beautiful, state-of-the-art arena that, unfortunately, was flooded by 
these floodwaters. Of course, we can see other damage to the town.
  Many of the homeowners in the community of Conway, on the other side 
of the State, are people who suffered some of the worst damage and are 
elderly and disabled. They are people who are living on fixed incomes, 
who are least able to recover from this kind of disaster.

[[Page 13463]]

  Others affected by the disaster are families who are already 
struggling to cope with difficult economic circumstances. New Hampshire 
emergency response officials toured Conway today, and they talked to 
our office and told us about the plight of one young family of three. 
Sadly, the father was laid off from his job just 3 days before the 
storm hit, and his wife, who stays at home and takes care of their 3-
year-old, doesn't have a job outside the home. So with his layoff, they 
have lost their entire income, and now their home is so damaged they 
are worried about being homeless. They have no money to rebuild. 
Without FEMA assistance, this family could indeed wind up homeless.
  Hundreds in the West Lebanon area in the western part of the State 
across the river from Vermont may be out of work for months. Peg 
Howard, who owns a boutique gift store in the area, told the Upper 
Valley News, which is the newspaper that serves Lebanon, that she fears 
damage from Irene will put her out of business. As a small business 
owner, she has no parent corporation to help her recover, so assistance 
from FEMA and other Federal programs may be her only option as she 
tries to rebuild her business.
  Peg and the hundreds of others in New Hampshire and the thousands 
across the country who have been devastated are taxpayers, and this is 
their government. They help pay for it. Their tax dollars help fund our 
government, including FEMA. They have the right to expect that FEMA 
will be there when they need help.
  It is not only sad but it is an outrage that some Members of Congress 
would deny those people who have been so hard hit by Irene and so many 
other disasters this year--that Members of Congress would deny them 
help in their time of need, and for no good reason. The reason is pure 
partisan politics. It is plain and simple.
  Even in the best of circumstances, the costs of Irene would be a 
significant burden for New Hampshire to shoulder alone. Thankfully, 
President Obama quickly granted Governor Lynch's request for a major 
disaster declaration. A number of Federal agencies, including FEMA, are 
now on the ground providing essential assistance as we begin to restore 
our State's homes, businesses, roads, and utilities.
  But New Hampshire is hardly alone in the need for assistance after 
Hurricane Irene. Other parts of the country are still rebuilding from 
disasters earlier this year, such as the devastating tornado in Joplin, 
MO. Soon FEMA's disaster relief fund, as we have already heard this 
afternoon, which was already running low prior to the storm, will no 
longer have the resources needed to continue meeting recovery needs.
  In the last 2 weeks, FEMA has spent $300 million providing relief to 
States hit by Hurricane Irene. Less than $500 million remains, which 
may not be enough to see us through the end of the month. New 
Hampshire, and the other States still recovering from disasters would 
be on their own if that happens. We cannot let that happen. We must act 
quickly to provide FEMA with the resources it needs to help our 
citizens and our towns recover.
  In northern New England, we have a limited window to rebuild before 
the onset of winter brings our construction season to a stop. What is 
more, in New Hampshire, fall is a critical season for our tourism 
industry, as thousands of visitors come to take in the beautiful fall 
foliage. We need to immediately rebuild the bridges Irene destroyed, 
such as this one in Hart's Location, pictured here. As you can see from 
this picture, in another couple of weeks, this beautiful mountain, as 
shown in the background, with all of the green foliage will be turning 
all sorts of colors because of the fall foliage. If we cannot fix this 
road and bridges in a number of other places in New Hampshire, we will 
not be able to have a tourist season that can bring people to the State 
that can help those people whose jobs depend on that tourism industry. 
Any delay in FEMA assistance over the next few weeks could have a 
serious effect on recovery efforts and the hundreds of businesses and 
their employees who depend on the tourism industry.
  Mr. President, I know you agree with me and with the other Senators 
who have come to the floor this afternoon who believe that natural 
disasters should be beyond politics and beyond partisanship. The people 
hurting all across this country are not Democrats or Republicans or 
Independents. They are citizens. They are taxpayers. Getting them the 
help they need demands bipartisan cooperation. In the past, we have 
always been able to come together and get people the help they need. 
This time should be no different.
  I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to work together to address 
this emergency and provide FEMA the resources it needs to carry out its 
mission. This has an immediate, real impact on so many Americans and we 
cannot delay.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I had to slip away from the floor for 
a few minutes, and I understand that no one from the other side has 
come down to speak this afternoon. I cannot say I blame them because it 
is a very tough position to take.
  We are getting ready to take a very important vote in 5 minutes on 
whether we are going to provide disaster relief for the country, and 
particularly for the east coast, which has been so terribly hit with 
Hurricane Irene and then, of course, Tropical Storm Lee that came up 
through the gulf coast--and you know we have had our share of 
difficulty--but then it dumped additional rain in an area that was 
already saturated. We have wildfires raging in Texas. We have the 
destruction still in Joplin, MO, and other places throughout the 
Midwest.
  The question for Americans in all of these States--Democrats, 
Republicans, and Independents, and some who are totally unaffiliated 
with the political process--is: Is Congress going to help? Our answer 
today needs to be yes. We need to fill the FEMA coffers that are empty. 
Our fiscal year ends this month. FEMA was given a certain amount of 
money in the earlier part of this year. The end of the year is coming 
up, and they are virtually out of money.
  I submitted for the Record only 30 minutes ago that in the last 11 
days $387 million for ongoing construction projects for past disasters 
have been put on hold so FEMA can stretch those dollars to make sure 
people can eat in the shelters and at least have one set of clothes to 
wear in other parts of the country. This is unheard of in our Nation. 
We have never, ever gotten so low in our disaster account.
  There is plenty of money in the account to rebuild Iraq. There is 
plenty of money in the account to rebuild Afghanistan. There is money 
in accounts for refugee camps all over the world. But the account for 
Americans who are homeless, desperate, and without their businesses, 
their churches and, in some cases, their neighborhoods is empty, and 
Members are going to come to the floor today and vote no? I strongly 
suggest a ``yes'' vote.
  I said the reason we cannot budget exactly for these disasters is 
because we, A, do not know when they are going to happen, and we do not 
even know the amount of the damage. As I have shown in my arguments 
this afternoon, the amount wildly fluctuates. One year it was zero, 
over the last 10 years. One year it was zero. The next year it was $5 
billion. One year it was $8 billion. The next year it was $43 billion.
  So I am saying, no one here--we are all very good, very powerful 
people, but we are not fortune tellers, and we do not have crystal 
balls on our desk, so there is no way we can know.
  When people say to me: Well, you don't know exactly, but could you 
budget something, the answer is, yes, we could figure that out, but we 
do not have to figure that out today. We do

[[Page 13464]]

not even have to figure that out this month. We have this 
supercommittee set up to fix every problem in the world, it seems. We 
will just give them another one to work on because we have been working 
on this in the Appropriations Committee for some time. The White House 
is engaged. The Republican leadership, hopefully, will get engaged. The 
Democratic leadership is engaged. We will figure it out. But now is not 
the time to have the victims of these disasters and the survivors of 
these disasters worry about this.
  We need to refill FEMA's coffers, refill the Corps of Engineers that 
are stretched beyond imagination at this time. You can imagine with the 
Mississippi River. The highest flooding in 50 years occurred this year. 
Now they have other flash floods all over the country--a bridge here, 
several bridges there, dams and dikes bursting. One of the Governors, I 
understand, just shut down a major bridge because they found a 
structural fault. So the Corps of Engineers has more than they can say 
grace over. Now is not the time to cut their budget. Now is the time to 
give them additional funding and do some reform of the Corps of 
Engineers that my people are crying for in Louisiana.
  I think a picture is worth a thousand words. I know we are getting 
ready to vote, and the leader will come and, I guess, call for the 
vote. But a picture is worth a thousand words.
  These are people who are desperate. I have shown this picture this 
afternoon. This is Joplin, MO. This is somewhere along the Mississippi 
River and the great flood. How lonely is this? At least in Joplin you 
could find a neighbor to talk to or a group of people who worshipped at 
a church, and you could pray together. This family is isolated, as 
others are in many rural communities. They need a yes from us this 
afternoon.
  Here is Texas, and this breaks my heart. I think this is North 
Carolina. How sad are these pictures? They are real. Behind them are 
thousands of families and businesses.
  In addition, if this argument of compassion doesn't move people, 
maybe the argument of flat business will move people. We are ready for 
the vote; I think the time has come. I urge my colleagues to please 
vote yes on this motion to proceed. If we get 60 votes, we can proceed 
to the disaster bill and figure out how to pay for it sometime in the 
next month ahead.
  I thank the Chair.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk 
will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 154, H.J. Res. 66, a joint resolution 
     approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the 
     Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
         Harry Reid, Richard J. Durbin, Barbara Boxer, Mark R. 
           Warner, Jeff Bingaman, Daniel K. Inouye, Ben Nelson, 
           Patty Murray, Frank R. Lautenberg, Daniel K. Akaka, 
           John F. Kerry, Ron Wyden, Bill Nelson, Jeff Merkley, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Max Baucus, Charles E. Schumer.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 66, an act approving the renewal of 
import restrictions contained in the Burmese Democracy Act of 2003, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 132 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rubio
       
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the 
nays are 38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion, upon reconsideration, is agreed 
to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand that Senator Conrad is on the schedule to 
speak in just a few minutes, but with his permission I just wanted to 
say thank you to the Members who voted favorably to move forward with 
the discussion about how to fund disaster relief and to provide this 
emergency funding.
  The leader has laid down a very responsible $6.9 billion emergency 
bill for victims and survivors of the many disasters with which our 
country is struggling. These numbers were not pulled from the air. 
These numbers came through the appropriate appropriations committees. I 
think it is a solid amount to deal with the emergencies right before us 
for the next months and perhaps through the coming year. These numbers 
will be fine-tuned as we move forward. But it was a very powerful 
``yes'' vote for thousands, tens of thousands of people who are waiting 
for us to say yes to move forward, filling the accounts that are now 
virtually empty, and giving a positive signal to Governors, both 
Republicans and Democrats; mayors, Republicans and Democrats; county 
commissioners, Republicans and Democrats, that help is on the way and 
that the Federal Government is not, and will not, turn its back on them 
at this time of need. So I thank the Members.
  We had a strong vote, 61 votes. We needed 60; we got 61. But it was a 
strong vote, and I am glad we were joined by several Members from the 
other side, and I thank those who said yes to move this disaster relief 
forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I come to thank my colleagues as well 
for this strong vote to move forward on disaster relief. In almost 
every corner of America we have had unprecedented natural disasters 
this year, and my State has not been exempt.
  I represent North Dakota, and we have had flooding unprecedented 
since records have been kept on the Souris River that goes through 
Minot, ND, the Missouri River that goes between Bismarck and Mandan, 
ND, the place where I come from. We have seen absolute devastation, 
water levels that changed virtually overnight. I can remember the 
forecast being raised 10

[[Page 13465]]

feet from Minot, ND, in a period of 48 hours, a higher water level than 
we have seen in over 100 years of recorded history. The same is true in 
the Missouri Valley Basin, with runoff the highest it has ever been. 
This has led to incredible flooding.
  This is a picture from Minot, ND, where 11,000 people had to 
evacuate, 4,000 homes flooded. These are middle-class neighborhoods, 
and virtually no one had flood insurance. There were only 340 or 350 
flood insurance contracts in this entire community of over 40,000 
people because they had a Corps-certified levee protecting them that 
was supposed to be good for a 100-year flood. They had new dams that 
had been constructed in Canada and dams that had been enhanced in North 
Dakota. We hadn't had a major flood in 40 years.
  FEMA is absolutely essential to helping these people get back on 
their feet. That funding is necessary, but it is not sufficient. 
Anybody who thinks we are going to get well on just FEMA funding does 
not understand the FEMA program. FEMA was designed to work in 
conjunction with insurance--homeowners insurance, flood insurance. But 
if there is a flood, homeowners insurance doesn't cover it. I can tell 
you, in a community that didn't have flood insurance--or almost no one 
did--if all they have is FEMA, it is important, it is essential, but it 
is not enough.
  Nobody knows that better than the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. 
Landrieu.
  I don't think in my entire time here I have ever seen anybody fight 
more doggedly, more persistently, or more effectively for their home 
State and their home community than Mary Landrieu did when they were 
hit with Katrina. Mary Landrieu is a hero because she would not take no 
for an answer.
  I saw it time after time after time in the caucus, on the floor of 
the Senate, in committees. Do you know what. She delivered something 
that those people desperately needed. Good for her, and good for the 
people to have sent somebody here who would fight for them in their 
time of need.
  Madam President, I am here representing a State at its time of need 
because we had thousands of people desperately affected--not as many as 
in the State of Louisiana; it is a much bigger population there. But in 
my State, when 11,000 people are evacuated in one town, that is a big 
deal. Eleven thousand people were forced out of their homes. They 
weren't just forced out overnight, they weren't just forced out over a 
weekend, they weren't just forced out over a couple of weeks, they have 
been out of their homes for months, and they are not getting back in 
their homes until sometime next year. Now, that is reality. Talk about 
a tough reality.
  With FEMA they qualify for $30,000--and thank God for it because 
without it they would have nothing. That is it. That is it. These are 
people who have lost homes that were worth $150,000, $160,000, and they 
had a mortgage on them. What do they do? They are going to get $30,000. 
Do they rehab the home? Do they rebuild the home? What do they do? 
Thirty thousand dollars when a home has been underwater for 6 weeks, 
for 8 weeks, thousands of homes that had 10 feet of water in them for 
weeks and weeks and weeks?
  When the water recedes, as it has done now, they are left with a pile 
of muck. I have been there. I have seen it, I have smelled it, and it 
is not a happy circumstance. These people deserve some additional help.
  Do you know what we did in Louisiana? We passed emergency 
supplemental appropriations for CDBG. I predict if that is not done now 
in this disaster, these communities will have a difficult time ever 
recovering because with homeowners insurance, they are not going to 
collect on that in a flood. Very few people had flood insurance because 
they thought they were protected by the dams. They are left with 
$30,000 to recover. It doesn't add up.
  We have to have additional CDBG funding because that is what was used 
in the floods of North Dakota in the 1990s that helped us recover. That 
was what was used in Louisiana to help them recover. That is what is 
going to be needed here in cases where flooding occurred.
  Here is the headline from the Minot Daily News: ``Projection: 
Devastation.'' When they were told the water level was rising as 
rapidly as it was, there was no time to defend the town.
  They had levees that were supposed to be good for a 100-year flood, 
but Canada lost control of one of its major dams. Their provincial 
leadership told our Governor: The floodgates are wide open. We have 
lost control of the dam, and that wall of water is coming your way. 
That meant, in a short period of time the projections for the height of 
the water in Minot, ND, went up 10 feet in 48 hours. There is no way to 
raise miles and miles of levees 10 feet in 48 hours. That is humanly 
impossible.
  What was the result? Everywhere you look, flooding. The Minot Daily 
News headline: ``It's a sad day''. Boy, it was a sad day. ``The crest 
could be 10 feet higher than June 1.''
  In just a matter of days that wall of water was headed toward this 
community, and they had no time to raise their defenses. Here is the 
predictable result: That is Minot, ND, downtown. Water is everywhere--
in every residential community in the valley, the business community. 
You can see, this water is not like the typical flood where the water 
comes and goes. Here, the water came and stayed and stayed for days and 
days and weeks and weeks and months. It wasn't until just recently that 
the floodwater receded.
  This is a picture, again, from that community. In many cases all you 
can see are the rooftops.
  Again, I want to say to those who might be listening because they 
need to understand, they need to understand: The FEMA assistance that 
we believe is now going to be on its way--in our case, some of it has 
already been received and we deeply appreciate it--it is not going to 
be enough. When someone has lost a $160,000 house, $30,000 is not going 
to touch the problem.
  That is the reality, and the only way they are going to make 
meaningful inroads on that problem for people who didn't have flood 
insurance, through no fault of their own because they thought they were 
protected by new dams, by a levee--but, unfortunately, they faced 
something that has never been seen in history. It has never been seen 
in history. These are middle-class families, and they are devastated--
there are over 4,000 homes destroyed in a community of 40,000 people.
  If we don't get some additional help through additional funding for 
CDBG, those people's lives will be devastated. That is the reality. We 
did better for the people in Katrina. We did better for the people who 
were victims of the floods back in the 1990s because we passed 
emergency supplementals for CDBG to help people who were devastated, 
who needed a helping hand. We need to do it again.
  I am pleased to say we have circulated a letter--and we have 
bipartisan signatures on it--to the leadership asking for CDBG funding 
on an emergency basis for the communities not just in my State but all 
across the country: the people in Joplin who were devastated by a 
tornado with wind speeds, I am told now, some of them up to 300 miles 
an hour; the people who have just been devastated by Irene; others who 
were affected by Lee; and others whom we can fairly anticipate will be 
hit as we go through the hurricane season.
  We have seen natural disasters I think declared in all the States but 
two.
  Yes, we need to replenish FEMA. We need to do it on an urgent basis. 
But we also need to add to CDBG funding so that people are not left 
devastated, with no chance to rebuild their lives.
  I end with this headline: ``Swamped.'' That is what happened in 
Minot, ND. That is what happened in other cities in my State as well--
Bismarck, Mandan, my hometown area, and many other communities. Of 
course, we have the ongoing situation in Devils Lake, ND, where the 
lake has gone up 30 feet in the last 17 years. That is now three times 
the size of the District of Columbia and is within 3 feet of going 
over. That will be a major calamity for all of eastern North Dakota if 
it is not prevented.

[[Page 13466]]

  I implore my colleagues: Yes, let's replenish FEMA funds on an 
emergency basis. That is essential. But let's not stop there. Let's 
also provide meaningful funding for CDBG because without it, families 
will have a very difficult time ever recovering from these devastating 
blows.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Employment Impact Act

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week the President addressed a 
joint session of Congress. He said he wanted to eliminate regulations--
regulations, he said, that put ``unnecessary burden on businesses at a 
time when they can least afford it.'' We have heard this same message 
from the White House time and time again. The rhetoric coming out of 
this White House simply has not matched the reality. In fact, 
Washington continues to roll out redtape each day, and the redtape 
makes it harder and more expensive for the private sector to create 
jobs in this country.
  The President also said that his administration has identified over 
500 reforms to our regulatory system that would save ``billions of 
dollars over the next few years.'' I appreciate that the White House 
has identified wasteful regulations, but it will not really help our 
economy unless the White House repeals them. Since January, this White 
House has only repealed one single regulation, and it has to do, 
actually, with spilt milk. The President's new plan does nothing to fix 
the regulatory burdens faced by our job creators. It actually adds to 
the burdens of the job creators of this country.
  The President has tried to justify this increasing avalanche of 
redtape. He said he doesn't want to ``choose between jobs and safety.'' 
In today's regulatory climate, that choice is a false choice. 
Washington's wasteful regulations are not keeping Americans safe from 
dangerous jobs. The American people cannot find jobs because no one is 
safe from the regulations coming out of Washington. For every step our 
economy tries to take forward, Washington's regulations continue to 
stand in the way.
  Federal agencies' funding has increased 16 percent over the past 3 
years while our economy has only grown 5 percent over these same 3 
years. Washington's regulatory burden is literally growing three times 
faster than our own economy. This massive increase in Washington's 
power has only made the economy worse.
  Americans know that regulating our economy makes it harder and more 
expensive for the private sector to create jobs. The combined cost of 
the new regulations being imposed by this administration just last 
month was over $9 billion. Much of this cost has been borne by 
America's energy producers and has cost American workers thousands of 
red, white, and blue jobs.
  Those who try to justify these policies claim they will help us 
create green jobs at some unknown time in the future. Our economy, our 
job market, is not a seesaw. Pushing one part down doesn't make the 
other side pop up.
  This administration's out-of-control regulation is persistently 
dragging down large portions of our economy. The President has promised 
to stop this kind of overreach. Remember, he issued an Executive order 
at the start of this year that was supposed to slow down Washington's 
regulation. So what has this administration done about it? In the 7 
months since the President issued his Executive order, hundreds of new 
rules have been either enacted or proposed. For every day that goes by, 
our job creators face at least one new Washington rule to follow.
  When the President announced his Executive order, he said he wanted 
to promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. These are laudable 
goals, but a new rule every day does nothing to promote predictability 
and is the very definition of uncertainty.
  The President talked about uncertainty just recently. The main source 
of uncertainty in the economy right now is Washington's regulations. 
Yet there was not a single sentence about regulations in the 
President's address just this week.
  To make things worse, the people most victimized by this uncertainty 
are the very people the President claims he wants to help. The 
President said last year that when it comes to job creation, he wants 
to, as he said, ``start where most new jobs do--with small 
businesses.'' The sentiment is right, but, again, what has he done 
about it? According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, businesses with 
fewer than 20 employees incur regulatory costs that are 42 percent 
higher than larger businesses with up to 500 employees, and that is not 
counting the avalanche of new regulations that will come down the road. 
This year, over 50,000 pages of regulations have been added to the 
Federal Register already, and the chamber of commerce has said that the 
President's new health care law alone will produce ``30,000 pages of 
new health care regulations, many aimed at small employers.''
  The President has said he will keep trying every new idea that works 
and listen to every good proposal, no matter which party comes up with 
it. I have a pretty simple idea. If the President wants to know which 
proposals will work to create jobs, maybe he should require his 
regulatory agencies to tell him how their own actions will affect the 
job market.
  Congressman Lee Terry of Nebraska and I have a bill that will do just 
that. It is called the Employment Impact Act, S. 1219. This bill will 
force Washington to look before it leaps when it comes to regulation 
that could hurt America's jobs. Under our bill, every regulatory agency 
would be required to prepare what is called a jobs impact statement, 
and this jobs impact statement would need to be prepared with every new 
rule that is proposed. The statement would include a detailed 
assessment of the jobs that would be lost or gained or sent overseas by 
any given rule coming out of Washington. It would consider whether new 
rules would have a bad impact on our job market in general. This jobs 
impact statement would also include an analysis of any alternative 
plans that might be better for the economy. Most importantly, it would 
require regulatory agencies to look at how new rules might interact 
with other proposals coming down the road.
  The problem with our regulations is not only that they are too 
sweeping, it is also that there are too many of them, so it makes no 
sense to look at an individual rule in a vacuum and enacting hundreds 
of them without knowing their cumulative effect. The effect of all of 
these together could spell death by a thousand cuts for hard-working 
Americans who are trying to work and support their families.
  Also in keeping with the principles of transparency, this bill would 
require every jobs impact statement prepared by a Federal agency to be 
made available to the public. The American people deserve to know what 
their government is actually doing, and Federal agencies in Washington 
need to learn to think before they act.
  Requiring statements from these agencies on what their regulations 
will do is nothing new. For 40 years, the Federal Government has always 
required its bureaucrats to ask the question of whether their actions 
will impact America's environment. They have to file environmental 
impact statements. What I am asking for here is a jobs impact 
statement.
  Past generations of legislators rightly recognized the importance of 
America's land, air, and water, but it is important that we recognize 
the importance of America's working families as well. America's 
greatest natural resource is the American people. We are talking about 
people who want to work, are willing to work, are looking

[[Page 13467]]

for work, and yet cannot find a job. The Employment Impact Act will 
force Washington bureaucrats to realize Americans are much more 
interested in growing our Nation's economy than they are in growing our 
government.
  I am going to continue to fight to see that the Employment Impact Act 
is passed and signed into law to help get Americans working again.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I wish to echo the comments made by my 
colleague from Wyoming regarding regulations. That is something I hear 
from small businesses all across South Dakota, traveling my State 
during the month of August. I toured businesses, and I visited with 
farmers and ranchers and small businesspeople. That was a recurring 
theme, one thing people continued to bring up unsolicited. When you 
asked them questions about what can be done to help create jobs, to get 
them investing and putting their capital to work, that was the 
overwhelming response. It came back literally every single time, that 
businesses are concerned about the overreaching regulations coming out 
of Washington, DC, and the economic uncertainty that it creates. Part 
of it just has to do with the predictability that businesses need to 
make long-term investment decisions. If they do not know what is going 
to happen next in Washington, DC, it makes it awfully hard for them to 
plan. So as a consequence of that, we see billions of dollars, 
trillions of dollars, sitting on the sidelines right now that could be 
invested and could be put to work, could be getting people back to work 
in this country.
  Last week we all listened with great interest as the President came 
out to a joint session of Congress and made a speech about a jobs plan. 
He talked about passing this jobs plan. He has been traveling around 
the country making that same argument. What was interesting to me about 
that proposal--and, of course, the speech itself was sufficiently 
vague. It was very difficult to know exactly what was in that proposal, 
where more of those details now are coming to light. It sounded eerily 
similar to the very same proposal we voted on a couple of years ago in 
the Senate. It ultimately became law. It was called the stimulus bill. 
It had a pricetag of nearly $1 trillion.
  The assertions made at the time were along the lines that if we 
passed this it would keep unemployment below 8 percent. We know 
employment is over 9 percent, and since that stimulus bill was passed 
we have lost 1.7 million jobs in our economy. There are 1.7 million 
fewer Americans employed today than there were when the stimulus bill 
passed a couple of years ago. So the question, then, is, Why would we 
want to go down that same path?
  In many respects this proposal is like that one because it consists 
of more spending and more taxing and more borrowing--all the things we 
believe are detrimental to the economy in the long run. They do nothing 
to address the concern that was raised to me by the small businesses 
across South Dakota and the issue to which the Senator from Wyoming was 
just speaking; that is, the issue of overregulation that we keep 
hearing from our businesses across this country, the job creators in 
our economy.
  It strikes me, if the President is serious about actually doing 
something that would create jobs in this country, it ought to involve 
putting policies in place that will be conducive toward long-term 
economic growth to provide the economic certainty these small 
businesses are asking for.
  Right now there is uncertainty with regard to taxes. Tax rates are at 
least locked in now until the end of 2012, but beyond that it is 
anybody's guess. There is a concern, of course, that any proposal 
coming out of Washington right now that deals with deficit reduction 
might include higher taxes. That certainly is something the President 
put on the table yet again yesterday as a proposed way to pay for his 
new stimulus bill.
  There is this repeated and consistent assault upon small businesses 
in the form of more regulations. The President backed off of the ozone 
regulations, which is something that everybody reacted very favorably 
toward in the business community and people I talked to. But there are 
so many other regulations that are out there: the CO2 
emission regulation, appropriated dust regulation, the change in the 
classification for coal ash. There are all kinds of regulations--
particularly out of the EPA, but not exclusively the EPA--coming out of 
agencies of this government that are creating greater uncertainty and 
making it more difficult and more costly for small businesses to create 
jobs. So why not focus on that issue? Why not focus on getting the 
free-trade agreements?
  There were three free-trade agreements essentially negotiated in the 
previous administration. They are languishing because they have not 
been submitted to Congress for ratification. The President talks about 
free trade and creating jobs through exports. We had three free-trade 
agreements in 2006 and 2007. Colombia was 2006. Panama and Korea were 
June of 2007. The President said: I want Congress to approve these 
free-trade agreements.
  We cannot do that until he submits them to the Congress. We would 
love to approve those free-trade agreements. It would mean thousands of 
jobs in this economy. We know that. It is low-hanging fruit. It is 
something we could do today that is something positive to actually 
create jobs in this country.
  Just as an example, in my State of South Dakota in 2008, the top 
three crops were corn, wheat, and soybeans. In those three commodities 
we had 81 percent of the market in the country of Colombia. In 2010 
that had dropped off to 19 percent. It is a major collapse in our 
market share in that country simply because we have not ratified this 
free-trade agreement, and in the interim we have had other countries 
that have moved in and filled the vacuum.
  Most recently the Canadians, on August 15, I think, had their own 
bilateral trade agreement with Colombia. We may go down to zero market 
share if we do not act quickly to get the free-trade agreements 
approved. It is not a function of us wanting to do it; it is a function 
of the President submitting those agreements to Congress for 
ratification. We cannot vote on and ratify those trade agreements, put 
them into effect, and get them implemented absent the President of the 
United States sending them to Capitol Hill. That is something on which 
Republicans would love to work with the President.
  We would also love to work with the President on a moratorium on 
regulations. I think it would make perfect sense, given what we know 
about what small businesses are telling us in terms of creating jobs 
and hiring people and investing capital, that regulation is a huge 
impediment to that. So why not--at least for the foreseeable future, 
until such time as we start getting this unemployment rate down and get 
people back to work--put a moratorium on all these crazy regulations 
coming out of Washington, DC?
  There are literally millions of jobs that are impacted by these 
various regulations according to estimates that have been put forward 
by organizations such as the chamber of commerce and others. There are 
millions of jobs in this country impacted by the issue of regulation. I 
would think it would make perfect sense for this President to say to 
us, as part of his jobs package, his jobs plan: We want to work with 
you to put a moratorium on regulations for a 2-year period, until the 
end of his term in office--whatever that period is--but at least some 
amount of time so businesses know with some certainty that if they 
invest their dollars, they are not going to be slapped with some new 
regulation coming out of Washington, DC.
  There was a story just this morning about 500 jobs lost in the State 
of Texas over a new EPA regulation. We have seen examples of that in my 
State of South Dakota. We have had coal-

[[Page 13468]]

fired powerplants that have been nixed simply because of this 
uncertainty that has been created by regulations coming from 
Washington, DC. That is something that Republicans on Capitol Hill--if 
the President wants to be proactive in terms of job creation and 
actually having a forward-looking proposal and plan for job creation, 
he would certainly get cooperation from lots of folks on our side of 
the aisle when it comes to the issue of regulations.
  Another thing we would be more than happy to work with the President 
on is broad-based and comprehensive tax reform. We all talk about it, 
and nobody seems to be willing, at least from the President's 
perspective, to put forward a proposal that would actually broaden the 
tax base in this country, lower the rates on businesses and 
individuals. I think it would lead to an enormous amount of economic 
growth. Most people and businesses I talk to suggest that right now in 
America the complexity in the Tax Code, the rates in our Tax Code, make 
us anticompetitive.
  We lose jobs every single day to other countries around the world 
that have lower tax rates. Businesses are taking their capital and 
investing it overseas, creating jobs overseas, and are opposed to 
putting it in our country because our rates are not competitive. Our 
corporate tax rate at 35 percent is the second highest in the world. We 
are second only to Japan, and they were going to lower theirs prior to 
the tsunami.
  The fact is, we have tax rates in America today that are making it 
very difficult for our businesses to compete and to keep those jobs and 
keep that investment in this country.
  What can we do about that? Well, if we had broad-based tax reductions 
on individuals and small businesses in this country, lowered taxes on 
investment, I think we would see an explosion of economic growth and 
get these businesses--provided that there is enough certainty 
associated with that. In other words, we don't do it for a short period 
of time, we do it for a long period of time. If we do that, we will see 
businesses pick up on that signal from Washington, DC, and begin to 
invest again and get a rate structure that is competitive with other 
countries around the world.
  Tax reform regulations, regulatory reform, a moratorium on 
regulations, trade, those are all issues that we are more than willing 
to work with this President on if he is willing to work with us because 
those are policies proven over time that actually will create jobs. 
Again, they are the things we consistently hear.
  I dare to say that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
hearing the same thing I am hearing. I hear it from colleagues on my 
side who are repeatedly visited by small businesses in their travels in 
their individual States, and when they go to make contact with their 
small businesses they hear this over and over. These are the issues the 
American business communities are saying we need to address to get 
people back to work in this country.
  I am certainly hopeful the President will change directions away from 
what he is proposing to do now, which is a very similar path to what 
was done 2 years ago, which we all know has been unsuccessful. If we 
look at it based upon the metrics--and, again, I am talking about job 
creation. If we look at it based upon the employment rate, the 
unemployment rate has gone up. The number of jobs lost has gone up. The 
amount of our debt has gone up by $4 trillion. We have borrowed more, 
we are spending more, and we are getting nothing in return--in fact, 
the very opposite of what we hope to get; that is, job creation. That 
approach has not worked.
  Let's not double down on that and go back and try the same failed 
policies again. Let's change direction. Let's go in a different 
direction for this country, and I would hope the President would do 
that.
  The other thing that I think is particularly troubling about his 
proposal--not to mention some of the things that he put out in his 
speech last week that give me a good amount of heartburn in terms of 
the direction he is headed--is how he proposes to pay for that. It was 
indicated yesterday that 90 percent of the cost of this stimulus bill 
would be paid for by allowing or preventing people from taking 
deductions--the two top income tax rates in this country and the people 
who are in those income tax brackets, to be able to claim deductions on 
their tax returns.
  Well, that impacts millions of Americans and millions of job 
creators, millions of small businesses, not to mention a lot of 
charities. Many of the people who contribute to charities today don't 
do it simply because of the tax consequence, but the amount they 
contribute to a charity is affected by the Tax Code, and reducing the 
amount they can deduct is going to make it more difficult for many of 
our charitable organizations that rely upon the generosity of people. 
In many cases these are high-income people in this country.
  That being said, raising taxes, in my view, is not the way to pay for 
a new stimulus, a stimulus 2.0, an approach that has been tried and 
failed. It is something we should not be moving toward, but moving away 
from, and moving in a different direction.
  Again, we have no greater priority in America today than getting this 
economy growing, creating jobs, getting people back to work. That helps 
bring in more revenue in the Federal Government and helps deal with our 
issue of the deficit and the debt. There are two ways we can deal with 
that: We can reduce spending, and we can grow the economy. We have to 
do both.
  Certainly, those are not unrelated. When we reduce spending, that is 
essential to growing the economy. We also have to put policies in place 
that will grow the economy and create jobs. Raising taxes is not the 
way to do that, and so the President's proposal to pay for his new 
stimulus bill which raises taxes on people is a wrongheaded approach 
that has not worked in the past. It will not work in the future. We 
need to try a different direction.
  Republicans are willing, ready, and able to work with this President 
on passing trade agreements that have been languishing around here, 
literally, for 4 to 5 years; on reducing the overreaching regulations, 
which are creating economic uncertainty for our small businesses across 
this country; and on tax reform that would lower rates and broaden the 
tax base and bring in an incredible explosion of economic growth and 
jobs.
  Those are the types of things we ought to be looking at--long-term 
policies that will affect in a positive way the environment, the 
atmosphere for our job creators, not doing another Washington-directed 
spending program that has already demonstrated that it doesn't work.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Syria

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the world has witnessed considerable 
upheaval across the Middle East this year as citizens from all walks of 
life have turned out by the millions to say enough to repressive 
regimes, stagnant political systems, and a lack of economic 
opportunities.
  In fact, we should probably look back to the summer of 2009 when 
thousands upon thousands of ordinary Iranians bravely took to the 
streets to peacefully protest the country's likely stolen election.
  These Iranian citizens were met with brutal violence, death, 
detention, and unspeakable torture.
  While Iran's ruling dictatorship was able to temporarily repress the 
public aspirations of its own people, the seeds for wider public 
discontent were taking root through much of the region.
  First, in Tunisia we saw peaceful protests lead to the ousting of 
corrupt, long-time strongman President Ben Ali.
  Next, Egyptian President Mubarak resigned following sustained 
peaceful

[[Page 13469]]

protests in Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt.
  And certainly Muammar Qaddafi's reign of erratic and despotic rule is 
nearing an end.
  Other popular calls for political and economic reform from Bahrain to 
Yemen remain in flux.
  And as we saw this weekend with the violent and very troubling 
protests breaching the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, ousting a repressive 
regime is only one step on a long road toward building effective long-
term democratic and economic institutions.
  The United States stands ready to support these peaceful transitions, 
but most of the hard work must continue to come from within--from the 
people who made such historic change possible in the first place.
  Amid so much upheaval and potential hope, it is critically important 
that we also keep our attention on what is happening in another very 
important country in the Middle East--Syria.
  Since March, millions of protesters have peacefully taken to the 
streets of towns and villages across Syria demanding an end to the 
brutal dictatorship of the Assad family.
  The Syrian people have suffered 40 years of economic hardship, 
political repression, and corruption under the Assad family--first 
under former President Hafez al-Assad and now under his son, Bashar al-
Assad.
  Let me give an example of life under the Assad regimes.
  Almost 30 years ago, then-President Hafez al-Assad ruthlessly leveled 
a Portion of the town of Hama to put down a rebellion by his own 
people.
  Between 10,000 and 20,000 fellow Syrians were literally buried to 
death in the ruble.
  This is how political dissent was dealt with in Syria.
  And what has been his son's strategy for addressing public demands 
for change while reform is sweeping the rest of the region?
  Tragically, the same as his father--mass murder.
  Since the popular uprising began, an estimated 2,000 people have 
already been slaughtered by Assad's security services.
  Government snipers on rooftops have fired on those who dare to go 
outside in areas where protesters are active. Men have been rounded up 
and detained in nighttime house-to-house raids. Tanks and anti-aircraft 
guns have been used against civilians and civilian buildings.
  A recent example--sadly one that is not at all unique--obviously 
shows that the current Assad regime has no sense of history.
  Last month government troops backed by tanks, armored vehicles, and 
snipers entered the heart of Hama--the same town of Hama that had been 
flattened by Assad's father three decades earlier--to quash 
antigovernment protesters.
  Our dedicated U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford had gone to Hama not long 
before the siege to serve as witness to the unfolding events.
  I wish to show this photo, which shows a giant Syrian flag held by 
the crowd during a protest against President Assad in the city of Hama 
on July 29.
  The town--already under siege for days--saw its telephone, water, and 
electricity cut off at 5 a.m. as a prelude to the deployment.
  Residents tried to stop the advancing armored columns with 
barricades--many of them built of furniture, iron railing, rocks, and 
cinderblocks--but stood little chance.
  Dozens were killed and hundreds wounded.
  Such public resilience and government brutality have continued 
unabated in Syria for months.
  President Assad's tyrannical actions have been condemned around the 
world. The Arab League, not always known for its democratic advocacy, 
has urged Syria to ``end the spilling of blood and follow the way of 
reason before it is too late.''
  Syria's neighbor and significant trading partner Turkey has spoken 
out. Turkish President Gul said he has ``lost confidence'' in the 
Syrian government. Prime Minister Erdogan has said, ``Turkey can no 
longer defend Syria.''
  British Prime Minister Cameron, French President Sarkozy and German 
Chancellor Merkel jointly issued a statement urging Assad to ``face the 
reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people 
and to step aside in the best interests of Syria and the unity of its 
people.''
  The United Nations human rights office in Geneva has issued a 
sweeping report concluding that the Syrian government might have 
committed crimes against humanity through summary executions, torture, 
and by harming children.
  President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have sharply 
criticized the Syrian government's crackdown from the start, and most 
recently the Administration announced additional sanctions against the 
regime, including those squeezing Assad's cash lifeline from petroleum 
exports. The European Union also cut its purchase of Syrian petroleum.
  Senators Gillibrand and Lieberman have introduced legislation--
legislation I am pleased to support--that further tightens sanctions 
against Syria's petroleum exports by penalizing those who buy Syrian 
oil or invest in its energy sector--an approach Congress has supported 
in the past against Iran.
  I urge others to support this legislation and for the Congress to 
pass it expeditiously.
  And when the crackdown in Syria began, I joined Senators Lieberman, 
McCain, Cardin, Kyl and at least 20 others on a Senate resolution 
condemning the violence. I understand that Senator Paul has had a hold 
on that resolution for a number of months. I call on Senator Paul to 
work with us on his concerns in a timely manner so we can move forward 
putting the Senate on record about these tragic events in Syria.
  There is more still the international community can do.
  Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa are still blocking a 
United Nations Security Council resolution that could impose more 
sweeping international sanctions on Syria. That some of these countries 
have emerged from decades under their own repressive regimes, only to 
sit silently as Assad slaughters his own people is extremely troubling.
  Russia and China should also pledge not to purchase any surplus 
Syrian oil which is used by Assad to pay off his enablers and security 
henchmen.
  Human rights monitors, humanitarian workers, and journalists must be 
allowed in the country.
  And the International Criminal Court should look into indicting 
President Assad on war crimes.
  This administration has shown great skill and diplomacy in navigating 
the turbulent calls for change in the Middle East.
  These are demands from everyday people for a better life, for a 
chance to freely choose one's government, and to see hope and dignity 
for one's children.
  The people of Syria should know that the rest of the world is 
watching and supporting their aspirations for freedom.
  Saturday night in a suburb of Chicago I had a meeting with about 30 
Syrian Americans, and we spoke at great length about the situation in 
the country of their birth. Many of them still have relatives, family, 
and friends, in Syria, and they are following on YouTube and through 
the international media the events of the day. They showed me on one of 
the computers nearby some of the YouTube footage which showed the 
Syrian security forces literally shooting a man dead, point blank. You 
could see him lying in the street, and you could see the blood flowing 
from his body.
  To suggest that these peaceful protesters are anything else is to 
misstate the obvious. These people, by and large, in the streets of 
Syria are asking for the same thing that was asked for across the 
Middle East. They are asking for a chance for reform, for change, for 
self rule.
  I promised my friends and people I represent in Illinois who have 
such strong feelings about Syria that I would do my best when I 
returned to Washington this week. This floor statement is just the 
beginning.

[[Page 13470]]

  A few moments ago, I got off the telephone, having had a phone 
conversation with Ambassador Ford, who is in Damascus. He has done an 
exceptional job for our country. He has risked his life to let those 
who are protesting peacefully know that the United States is in their 
corner. We talked about the situation on the ground. He is a man of 
great talent and experience in the Middle East, and he analyzed all the 
different forces at work.
  We know that Iran is, in fact, the major supporter and promoter of 
Assad and his repressive regime. We know, as well, that these five 
countries in the United Nations--Russia, India, China, Brazil, and 
South Africa--are stopping the United Nations action when it comes to 
Syria. I find it hard to imagine how some of these countries, in light 
of their own history, could ignore the obvious: the killing of innocent 
people in the streets of Syria. It cannot be tolerated, should not be 
condoned, and should not be protected by their veto in the United 
Nations.
  I am going to work with President Obama and this administration and 
my friends in Congress on both sides of the aisle to let the people of 
Syria know that what is happening there has not been ignored by the 
U.S. Congress. I hope Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky will at least lift 
his hold on bipartisan legislation which we have pending here which 
will express that sentiment in the strongest of terms.
  The people of Syria deserve that message, to know that the people of 
the United States, through their elected representatives in the Senate, 
understand their plight, stand behind them, and will work to bring 
justice to their country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________