[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14364-14375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM EXTENSION AND REFORM ACT OF 2011

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 
2608, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment to H.R. 2608, an act to provide for an additional 
     temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act 
     and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other 
     purposes, with an amendment.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House of 
     Representatives to the amendment of the Senate to the bill, 
     with Reid amendment No. 656 (to the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill), to provide 
     continuing appropriations in fiscal year 2011 and additional 
     appropriations for disaster relief in fiscal years 2011 and 
     2012.
       Reid amendment No. 657 (to amendment No. 656), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill 
     to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions, Reid 
     amendment No. 658, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 659 (to (the instructions) amendment No. 
     658), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 660 (to amendment No. 659), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 
will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to comment before the 
Senator from Louisiana leaves the floor. It is kind of like we have 
seen this movie before. If I recall, it was Friday. The Senator from 
Louisiana and I were out here with this chart talking about the same 
thing, showing all of these paths of hurricanes and how those folks who 
live along the gulf and the Atlantic coast understand what natural 
disaster is.
  We are playing with people's lives when we threaten not to fund FEMA, 
which can respond to these. How many of these do we have to have to get 
through to these decisionmakers who are blocking the funding of FEMA 
because of some ideological position?

[[Page 14365]]

There are people out there who are hurting in Tuscaloosa, AL; in 
Joplin, MO, all throughout New England, and along the Atlantic coast--
and who knows what is going to happen? Hurricane season goes until the 
end of November.
  I want to tell the Senator from Louisiana how much I appreciate her 
bringing this to our attention over and over again. We need to remind 
people that there are certain things that only the government can do, 
and this is one of them. When people are in need, they have to rely on 
emergency functions from their government. That is one of the main 
reasons of having a government. Hopefully, that message will get 
through.
  Mr. President, I want to speak about, basically, this budget 
conundrum in which we find ourselves. In a little less than an hour, we 
are going to vote on a motion to cut off debate just to get to the bill 
that would continue to fund the government after this Friday so that 
the government can operate.
  Speaking of movies that we have seen before, didn't we see this movie 
back in early August? Then it was over a different question of whether 
the government could continue to pay its bills. But in essence it was 
the same thing. In that case it was the lifting of the debt ceiling. In 
this case it is to keep the appropriations going, starting October 1.
  So if we have seen this movie before, didn't Senators and Members of 
Congress go home in August? And didn't they hear from their people, and 
the people said: What in the world are you all doing? What are you 
thinking? Have you guys gone off the rails, that you would threaten the 
shutdown of the government and all the necessary functions of the 
government, which would then imperil our economy more already than it 
is now imperiled in this recession?
  One would think Members of Congress got that message. Yet here we are 
again, in late September, after having gone through that drill in early 
August. We are going through the same thing again--this brinkmanship, 
this partisan ideological brinkmanship that has all the vestiges of 
being all balled up in electioneering politics and a Presidential 
election. That is not any way to run a country.
  Let me tell you why I think--if the folks out across America will 
start letting their elected representatives know they have had enough--
why we might see some change. With that cataclysmic confrontation we 
went through in early August, in order to get the government to pay its 
bills, we set up a structure--a process in law--where there was 
immediate debt reduction of some $1 trillion, but there is supposed to 
be--and I am rounding--another $1\1/2\ trillion done by this 
supercommittee that is supposed to report by Thanksgiving, and then we 
are to vote on it. Remember, a week and a half ago, the Presiding 
Officer and I and 34 other Senators--Republicans and Democrats alike--
went to the Senate press gallery and we stood and said: We want a big 
deal of deficit reduction. A lot of us were suggesting what we want is 
tax reform in the process, getting rid of a lot of the clutter in the 
Tax Code that is so inefficient in the way of tax preference to 
individual special interests, which have grown exponentially over the 
last 20 years, since the last tax reform measure, which was 1986, and 
instead utilize that revenue, which would be revenue gained, to 
simplify the Tax Code and lower rates. The actuaries tell us that 
would, in fact, crank up the engine of growth and from that growth 
would come additional revenue.
  Why is that so hard? Every constituent I have talked to seems to 
think that is a fairly good idea. You know what they say? They say it 
sounds like common sense.
  Mr. President, I see other Senators on the floor who wish to speak. I 
want the Senator from New York to know I have been speaking to some of 
his constituents--the titans on Wall Street--who are saying the same 
thing: What in the world are you guys doing? Have you all lost your 
minds?
  We have an opportunity to do something. If we will have as our north 
star some common sense, bipartisanship, and keeping in mind what is 
good for the country and not for our particular little ideology, then 
we can get something done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. First, Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from 
Florida. He knew I was waiting, and I know he cut short his remarks, so 
I appreciate that. But more importantly than that, I appreciate his 
insight, his articulation of our situation, and his desire to help the 
people of Florida. Nobody works harder for the people of Florida than 
the Senator from Florida. They know disaster just about better than 
anybody else, given their geographic situation. So his fight for FEMA 
dollars is a fight for every citizen of that great State of Florida, 
where I must say many of my former constituents now reside, so I have a 
special care about Florida as well. I thank him for both his courtesy 
and his insightfulness.
  FEMA runs out of money very soon. Already, recovery projects in more 
than 40 States have been halted so FEMA can focus their last dollars on 
responding to the latest disasters. To have FEMA not working in Joplin, 
MO, where we all saw the pictures, and because of the dangers that 
Hurricanes Irene and Lee created, is unheard of in this country. It is 
unheard of.
  The Senate has already passed the bipartisan bill to replenish FEMA's 
coffers, providing $7 billion in immediate relief, not just for FEMA 
but the Army Corps. I can tell you that in my State we need Army Corps 
relief as well as FEMA relief because so many of our rivers have 
changed course. They have flooded. I think I mentioned earlier the Erie 
Canal--the locks--are no longer by the river because the storm's force 
changed the course of the Mohawk, so the river is here and the locks 
are here--the great historic Erie Canal. So we provided this $7 
billion.
  A reasonable person might say--all our constituents are saying--to 
get government to work, the most logical thing to do would be quick 
passage by the House so we could begin to get those dollars out the 
door. Instead, House Republicans decided to take emergency disaster aid 
and leverage it to force cuts to a jobs program they themselves used to 
support. If there has ever been a case of playing politics, that is it. 
If they don't like this jobs program, fine, fight it out in the regular 
course of business, but don't hold FEMA dollars hostage to cut jobs. 
The American people don't want that choice. Help those who are in the 
middle of a disaster. Is the only way we can help them to cut jobs in 
Michigan or Louisiana or other States, at a time when our country is 
hurting for jobs? That is not America, and that is not what our 
constituents have asked us to do. The jobs program they want to end, 
before they are willing to provide more disaster aid, is not some 
radical program. It was started under the Bush administration. It was 
passed with a bipartisan majority.
  I understand their anguish. We have to cut funding. But we don't have 
to do it like this. We don't have to do it on the backs of the people 
of Schoharie County, whose homes have been blown away, or the people of 
Binghamton, who are in shelters because there is no rental housing for 
them. We don't have to do it on their backs. That is not fair. If our 
Republican colleagues want to have a fight over a program they used to 
support but now say the circumstances have changed, fine, we should 
have that. That is what we are here for. But don't hold disaster aid 
hostage.
  I want to say this, lest people think the Democratic stand is some 
way-out-there, leftwing stand. Guess who supports us. The U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Because they 
know what we are doing is right. Those are groups that are almost 
always supporting Republican initiatives. So when they say we are 
right, doesn't that send a shot across the bow to my colleagues to back 
off this ideological, narrow, my-way-or-the-highway position?
  Most importantly, the House Republican approach would require that we

[[Page 14366]]

kill 40,000 jobs in order to help our fellow Americans put their lives 
and businesses back together after this year's record disasters. That 
is not right, it is unprecedented, and I would say it is not the way we 
have done things in this country in the past.
  The CR we will vote on this afternoon is a fail-safe measure. It is a 
bill that will keep the government running at funding levels agreed to 
by Democrats and Republicans in the debt ceiling negotiations. It is a 
good-faith effort to compromise and contains the same amount of 
disaster relief funding House Republicans supported.
  It falls short of fully funding FEMA, as we did in the bipartisan 
bill passed 2 weeks ago, with 10 Republican votes, but we are working 
to meet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the middle in 
order to break the impasse. Will they move a little to the middle to 
meet us, or will they insist the only way to go is a bill that failed 
in this Chamber with a bipartisan vote against it of 59 to 36? Is 
Speaker Boehner saying to us a bill that fails in the Senate 59 to 36 
is the only way to go, when it is so wrong and not supported by the 
Chamber of Commerce; when it is pitting jobholders, and the future of 
this country in terms of energy independence, against each other versus 
disaster assistance? That is not fair. The only difference between our 
bill and the House bill is it doesn't require the job-killing cuts the 
Chamber of Commerce opposes and that our fragile economy can't afford 
right now.
  We know there has been a lot of pressure on the 10 Senate Republicans 
who joined us 2 weeks ago to fight full disaster funding. I hope they 
do not cave in to the pressure exerted by the extreme minority in the 
House that demands job cuts as a precondition for disaster relief. I 
would urge them not do it. If they can't resist that pressure, what is 
their solution? They know the House bill is a dead letter here.
  The path forward is clear. The Senate has already spoken on the 
political bill sent to us by the House. We must pass this commonsense, 
middle-of-the-road compromise measure that is now before the Senate. It 
will provide disaster aid to hard-hit communities across the country 
immediately and prevent an unnecessary government shutdown.
  We shouldn't even be talking about shutdown. Why are we? Because the 
other body decided to attach disaster relief to government funding. We 
are not just holding jobs hostage, we are holding government funding 
hostage in a my-way-or-the-highway presentation take it or leave it or 
your government shuts down, take it or leave it or 40,000 people lose 
their jobs. That is not fair and that is not right.
  Every aspect of our plan has already received major bipartisan 
support. Voting for it is the right thing to do. We must put politics 
aside at a time when the economy of this country is so fragile. We must 
avoid even coming close to a government shutdown. We must do what is 
right for our country. And what is right for our country is to pass the 
compromise measure that has had bipartisan support in the past and vote 
for it on the floor of the Senate in the next half hour.
  One other comment. My great colleague from Louisiana has done an 
incredible job. She has been showing this, but in case people missed it 
over the last hour, it is a great little cartoon. There is a nice lady 
with a gray bun and little glasses talking on the telephone. There is 
her TV on the roof of her house, which has, obviously, been flooded. 
This cartoon is humorous, but I have seen flood levels up to this level 
on house after house after house across large parts of the eastern part 
of New York. She is on the phone, saying: ``Welcome to the Republican 
disaster relief hot line. At the tone, please tell us the emergency and 
how you plan to offset the cost of your rescue.''
  When the next disaster comes and people are struggling, are we going 
to have to debate how much to cut education funds? In the next 
disaster, when people have experienced an earthquake, are we going to 
have to debate how to help those people while we talk about how much to 
cut Border Patrol funds? In the next disaster, when fires are ravaging 
across Texas or New Mexico or California, are we going to debate how 
much we have to cut food safety inspectors? That is not our way, and 
that is why we need to support this bill which has bipartisan elements 
and has been supported by Members of both parties. That bill is a 
compromise bill. It is the middle-of-the-road bill that is on the floor 
of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield my time, and I thank my great colleague from 
Louisiana for the great job she has done.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from New York, who has been a 
strong clarion voice on this issue. He has helped to crystalize what 
this is about. He is exactly right.
  I want to read into the Record, as the Senator from Illinois comes to 
speak, from several articles around the country that have editorialized 
exactly on the position that he ended on, and it is the point of this 
whole debate--whether we accept the Cantor doctrine, which requires an 
offset before we send help to people who are stranded or flooded out or 
in an ice storm or in the middle of a tornado or whether we have to 
have Washington cut the budget first.
  The central Pennsylvania newspaper said it well. They said:

       It is easy to generalize and say our government spends too 
     much money and needs to cut all government programs. Then a 
     tornado wipes out Joplin, MO, or a hurricane called Irene 
     slams into the East Coast destroying countless homes and 
     lives in Vermont or a flood devastates communities in Derry 
     Township, Middletown and Harrisburg, PA. It is then we count 
     on our local, state and federal governments for help and, in 
     particular, for the federal government to support us with 
     disaster relief. We have certainly seen this year through 
     wind, fire and rain--the ice could be next to come--that 
     FEMA's financial efforts cannot be tied to some sort of 
     Congressional pay-by-the-disaster system.
       We cannot decide with each new catastrophe where we will 
     find money, stripping funds from transportation this month 
     and education the next.

  That is what this debate is about. We did not choose this fight. It 
was started by Representative Eric Cantor. There was a moment in time 
when he said we must offset this disaster.
  Some of us stood right up and said: No, we will not.
  I see the Senator from Illinois, but I sent four letters as the chair 
of this committee as early as February. Please don't let anyone in the 
press criticize me for waiting until the last minute. February 16, 
2011, I sent a letter saying: Heads up. This is going to be a problem.
  Not many people listened. Then I sent another letter in March, then I 
sent another letter in May, and then I sent another letter May 11. We 
are now in September. One can accuse me of a lot of things. I most 
certainly make mistakes, but not being ahead of this one is not one of 
them. I knew this was going to happen.
  Here we are. This was not started by Harry Reid. It was not started 
by Leader Durbin from Illinois. It was started when Eric Cantor said, 
despite the fact that we sent $1.3 trillion to Iraq and Afghanistan to 
build cities and communities and houses in Iraq and Afghanistan, we 
cannot send any money to Vermont or to New Hampshire or to Virginia--
his own State, which is mind-boggling to me--until we find a program to 
cut. Then they cut a program that has bipartisan support that is 
creating jobs in America.
  I will yield the floor. The Senator from Illinois always has some 
interesting things to add to the debate, and I appreciate his support 
and leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from Louisiana, 
she has been a clarion and consistent voice on this issue because she 
has seen it and lived it. Anyone representing the State of Louisiana 
can give a lesson to all of us about what happens when the unexpected 
occurs and people lose their homes, their businesses, their lives. They 
are uprooted.
  We had some folks from New Orleans in Chicago. They were leaving New 
Orleans to come to one of our fabulous

[[Page 14367]]

winters because they had nowhere to go, and I saw the look in their 
eyes. They did not know where to turn. At that moment in time, many 
people across America count on the American family. That is who we are 
and we represent that family in the Senate.
  We stand for this country and for the families who are suffering 
through no fault of their own. When the Senator from Louisiana comes 
and tells us: Be careful when we set a standard that says before we can 
send the first dollar to someone who has lost their home or their 
business or their farm or whatever we have to come back to Washington 
and go through a budget debate and decide where we are going to cut--
out of money for education and medical research and the like. That is 
not the way it has ever happened. Emergency spending is emergency 
spending.
  I have lived through it--nothing like what my colleague went through 
in Louisiana, but the floods of 1993 in downstate Illinois, I was in 
pretty decent shape when it was over for all the sandbags I filled and 
pushed around with thousands of volunteers. We saw what happened. There 
were terrible things that happened, and I think the Senator from 
Louisiana would agree with me that flooding is one of the worst. It 
doesn't go away. It sits there destroying people's homes and everything 
they own, and when it finally goes away, what a mess. Also, in the 
Midwest, we have a little thing called a tornado. I grew up as a kid in 
downstate Illinois listening for the siren and heading for the 
basement. We did that I don't know how many times, sometimes in the 
middle of the night. But look at what happened to Joplin, MO. This 
beautiful town in Missouri was almost wiped off the map by a tornado.
  What do we tell the people who survive the next day? Sorry, Congress 
has to meet and debate and we will get back to you? Of course not. We 
stand and help people--scores of volunteers, hundreds of volunteers who 
come in for the Red Cross and so many other agencies and all the first 
responders. Governors don't say: We will see if the Federal Government 
will pay for this before we go in and help and provide lifesaving 
efforts. They do it, anticipating we will stand with them.
  Now Congressman Cantor of Virginia decides there should be a new 
approach: We need Congress to get together and debate before we help 
people who are victims of disasters.
  That is a serious mistake. We have to stand by people, whether they 
live in red States or blue States, whether they are Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents. We stand by one another and that is 
critically important.
  Let me say to the Senator from Louisiana, I think the thing I noticed 
over the weekend in Illinois, as I traveled around, was how fed up 
people are with what is going on in Washington on Capitol Hill. When 
they see us break down into another cussing match over shutting down 
the Government, they say: For goodness' sake, grow up--grow up and 
accept your responsibility.
  We are here today accepting a grownup responsibility. The House of 
Representatives is not here today. I hope they are going to send a 
message to us that they found a solution or, if not, I hope they are 
planning on returning this week because we have work to do.
  On Saturday, the spending for the Government ends. Once again, we 
face a shutdown, a shutdown which would cause unnecessary hardship to 
innocent people all across America. If you think you have heard this 
script before or watched this movie before, you have. This is the third 
time this year the House leadership has pushed a shutdown in front of 
us and said: That is it. Take it or leave it.
  That is no way to run a Congress, and it is no way to run a great 
nation. We need to come together and agree. I will tell everyone what 
Senator Reid, the leader on the Democratic side, did to try to reach an 
agreement. We had originally asked for $7 billion additional money for 
FEMA for next year. I will bet we need it. But Senator Reid said: In an 
effort to compromise, I will cut that request in half. We can get back 
together if we need it. There was an effort in consensus and 
compromise. It was totally rejected by the House. That is not a good 
way to act.
  I also wish to add to what the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, 
said earlier about this idea that the only way to pay for disasters is 
to eliminate jobs in America. How wrong is that? To go from a natural 
disaster to making our economic disaster worse? But that is what the 
House wanted to do. They wanted to eliminate jobs that are created by 
programs that have worked. Let me give an example.
  This intelligent, fuel-efficient vehicle program has put money into 
major automobile manufacturers to create more manufacturing jobs in 
Illinois, where we have had more jobs, good-paying American jobs for 
workers, that cannot be shipped overseas, with a good salary and good 
benefits. What is wrong with that picture? Isn't that what we are 
hoping for the rest of America as well?
  All across the Midwest, these car manufacturers have used this 
program and more than 40,000 jobs have been created and the House 
Republicans have said: Let's eliminate that and pay for disasters with 
it--totally upside-down thinking. We have to be thinking about helping 
those in distress, and we have to be thinking about creating jobs. We 
can do both.
  I take no backseat when it comes to tackling the deficit and debt in 
this country. I have been engaged in this debate for quite a while now 
and intensely over the last year and a half. But every economist and 
every clear-thinking person has said, before we start serious deficit 
reduction, take care of our immediate needs--that would be the defense 
of America and responding to disasters--and make certain this recession 
is behind us. We cannot balance the budget with 14 million Americans 
out of work. So get busy creating jobs. And we are going to. The 
President has come up with a proposal which I think makes sense, giving 
a payroll tax cut to working families. In my State of Illinois, where 
the average family makes about $53,500 a year, President Obama's 
payroll tax cut would mean an additional $1,500 a year for them, which 
is going to be about $125 a month in their paychecks. I bet they can 
use it as they watch the price of gasoline go up to $4.50 and go back 
down and go up again. They can use it.
  It also said: Let's give small businesses a tax credit and a tax 
incentive to hire the unemployed. I know, we all know, creating jobs in 
America has to start with small business. The Senator from Louisiana 
heads up that committee. She knows it. She has been the most aggressive 
spokesperson for that cause of any in the Senate.
  The same is true of where we are spending our money. We should be 
investing in America. In the suburbs of Chicago, in Morton Grove, IL, 
at the Golf Middle School, they took me on a tour of the 60-year-old 
school, and it is hard to imagine how they keep it going. They took me 
down to the boiler room. I don't think too many Senators spend too much 
time in boiler rooms in schools today, but I did, looking at a 60-year-
old boiler. The fellow, Jim Burke, who keeps it running, said it cost 
them $180,000 last year to keep this old, antique system going. They 
need a new HVAC system for the hundreds of kids going to this school. 
That is an example of buying products in America, installing them in 
America, and investing in America, so kids can be educated and can 
succeed in America. That is a plan we all should endorse in both 
political parties.
  In just a few minutes, we will have a vote on the floor, and I hope 
we will vote in a bipartisan fashion in a clear voice to say we are 
going to stand behind the victims of disasters across America, the 
American family can come together, and we are not going to cut jobs in 
order to reduce the pain people feel in disasters.
  We can do both, create American jobs and make certain those who are 
struggling through those disasters have the help they need.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I continue to be 
amazed

[[Page 14368]]

at his energy, in terms of leadership and what he does in Washington 
and his home State of Illinois. I appreciate the comments he has 
brought to this debate.
  I wish to say the vote we are going to have in a few minutes is going 
to decide whether we are going to change the way we help disaster 
victims. We are either going to do it the way we have pretty much 
always done it--when a disaster strikes, the Federal Government steps 
up; we are there. We encourage our Governors and mayors and local 
elected leaders to roll up their sleeves, work side by side with 
people, and take care of business, basically, get people out of harm's 
way, move them into shelters, comfort them, console them, keep families 
together, and then work with them in weeks and months and sometimes it 
takes years to get these communities back up and operating--or we are 
going to adopt the Republican sort of tea party/Cantor doctrine, which 
is ``my way or the highway,'' which is why we are having this debate a 
week before the end of the fiscal year, which says we are going to have 
to find money with each new catastrophe. We are going to have to find 
money by stripping money from either education or transportation or, in 
this particular case, stripping money from a program that creates 
private sector jobs--a public/private partnership, a lending program 
that helps new and emerging companies get the financial wherewithal to 
manufacture new automobiles in America and puts Americans to work.
  In fact, what is amazing about this offset that the Republicans have 
chosen to have this whole debate about is, it is an offset of a program 
that is supported by Republicans themselves. In fact, many Republicans 
in the Senate and in the House have actually sent letters--and I am 
going to read one or two of those right now--to the Secretary of Energy 
asking for funding out of this exact program for creating jobs in one 
State, which is a legitimate thing to do. It is done all the time. 
There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is then turning around 
and coming to Washington and voting to gut this program under the guise 
that we need to do so to help disaster victims.
  I have a number of letters and I ask unanimous consent they be 
printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I am going to read a letter written by the Members of 
the Indiana delegation. At least three Republicans have signed this 
letter: Senator Lugar from Indiana, Representative Dan Burton from 
Indiana, and Representative Mike Pence from Indiana.
  They wrote, on June 25:

       We write today to highlight the remarkable automotive 
     innovation occurring in Indiana--and the tremendous potential 
     for Hoosiers to lead our national effort in transforming the 
     automotive sector. Indiana is uniquely qualified and prepared 
     to lead the nation and the world in the development and 
     commercialization of advanced battery, electric drive 
     vehicles and other innovative transportation technologies.
       Hoosiers are committed to reaching our national goal of 
     reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and they are actively 
     researching, developing, and manufacturing technologies that 
     will be cleaner and create lasting jobs.
       The Hoosier state is the most manufacturing-intensive state 
     in the union and is home to some 700 automotive related 
     companies which employ more than 130,000 workers. Moreover, 
     Indiana's broad diversity of domestic and international 
     companies, its long experience manufacturing light duty, 
     heavy duty, recreational and military vehicles, and its rich 
     legacy pioneering the development of the electric power train 
     makes the state a national hub for automatic automotive 
     technology development.

  They go on and on. They say:

       Indiana already is home to a number of established and 
     emerging battery and electric vehicle technology companies. . 
     . .
       In addition, Indiana's world-class research universities 
     including Purdue University, Indiana University-Purdue 
     University Indianapolis, and the University of Notre Dame 
     have formed an active research and development partnership.

  The letter goes on to say what a great job they are doing. ``We 
strongly encourage you to give full consideration to the innovative 
applications for federal investment made by Indiana companies'' through 
the electric drive vehicle battery component manufacturing initiative 
and the $25 billion Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan 
Program. That is the exact loan program Republicans from Indiana have 
written to ask funding for that they are now eliminating to pay for 
disasters. If this were a program that was not working, if this were a 
program that did not create jobs in America, if this were a program 
that Republicans privately and publicly acknowledged was not a good 
program, that would be one thing. But to run home and cut ribbons, to 
say you are creating jobs in Indiana or in New York or in Illinois and 
then run up here and cut the program, claiming you have to do so to 
help disaster victims when it is just about unprecedented in the 
history of our country, there is something terribly wrong.
  We do not need to be destroying jobs; we need to be creating them. We 
do not need to be making excuses about how we do not have to help 
victims of disasters; we need to be helping them.
  I guess I take this a little bit personally because while the rest of 
the Members sort of say things like: Well, FEMA is not really running 
out of money, and they can probably make it until Friday--there is some 
talk about that going on. There are some technical ways that could be 
done--I wish to remind everyone here that this is already an emergency 
for over 400 projects that were shut down weeks ago. If you are a small 
business owner who had a subcontract building a road in Alaska, it is 
an emergency for you because you were shut down and you cannot make 
payroll. You already bought the supplies to build the bridge, and 
nobody on the Republican side is caring about your crisis.
  FEMA is technically out of money as we speak. The only way they are 
continuing to operate is because they have shut down these projects.
  This is the third time in the last 6 years, to my knowledge, that 
projects have been shut down across the country. Why is that right? 
Many of those projects are in Louisiana, some of them are in 
Mississippi, and some of them now are in Joplin. If you were in a 
disaster that happened a few years ago, because Republicans either will 
not budget the money or will not budget enough money or every time you 
go to ask for a dime, they require an offset somewhere else--truly what 
is happening is disaster victims in other parts of the country are 
subsidizing this foolishness.
  This does not fall equally on the backs of Democrats and Republicans. 
I know people are tired of hearing it, but it does not. Harry Reid did 
not start this fight. Mary Landrieu did not start this fight. Dick 
Durbin did not start this fight. Eric Cantor of Virginia, a Republican 
leader, started this fight when he said: We cannot fund the 2011 
disasters without an offset.
  So in this whole debate, what they have done is shut down projects in 
Louisiana and Mississippi despite the fact that I have said: We don't 
really need an offset. We have made arrangements in next year's budget. 
It is unprecedented, Representative Cantor. Your State is going to be 
hurt as well.
  He doesn't seem to care. But I do care, and I do think it is worth 
talking about.
  I don't know if we will win this battle today. I don't know if we 
will win this vote this afternoon. I am not the whip. I do not count 
the votes. All I do is keep my eyes on the people who are in disasters 
because I have had to for the years I have been, unfortunately, the 
Senator from Louisiana who has been through the worst natural disaster 
our country has ever known. I have walked through too many destroyed 
neighborhoods, I have cried with too many people, and I have watched 
what they go through.
  For me, this is not a simple change. This is a major change which we 
cannot afford in this country and which our people do not deserve. We 
cannot have a budget meeting every time there is a disaster in America 
and try to run up here and in 30 minutes or 2

[[Page 14369]]

days or a week decide what program we are going to slash that everybody 
can agree to so we can send help, whether it is to West Virginia or to 
Florida or to Michigan or Louisiana. That is no way to run a 
government.
  Now tea party people and Republicans want to bring change to 
Washington. I welcome some of that change but not this. This is not a 
change we need. This is not a good policy for America. I am not opposed 
to change. I am adaptable. I am a centrist. I am a moderate. I can 
listen to what Republicans and Democrats say, and I am proud of that. 
It is a strength. I consider it a strength, not a weakness. This is not 
a change I can support lightly, and that is what this fight is about. 
We may be forced to change, but if we are, I want the people of America 
to know this was Eric Cantor's idea. This is on the tea party agenda. I 
do not think it should be on America's agenda.

                               Exhibit 1


                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 2009.
     Hon. Dr. Steven Chu,
     Secretary of Energy, James Forrestal Building, Independence 
         Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Chu: We write today to highlight the 
     remarkable automotive innovation occurring in Indiana--and 
     the tremendous potential for Hoosiers to lead our national 
     effort in transforming the automotive sector. Indiana is 
     uniquely qualified and prepared to lead the nation and the 
     world in the development and commercialization of advanced 
     battery, electric drive vehicles and other innovative 
     transportation technologies.
       Hoosiers are committed to reaching our national goal of 
     reducing ow dependence on foreign oil, and they are actively 
     researching, developing and manufacturing technologies that 
     will be cleaner and create lasting jobs.
       The Hoosier state is the most manufacturing intensive state 
     in the union and is home to some 700 automotive related 
     companies which employ more than 130,000 workers. Moreover, 
     Indiana's broad diversity of domestic and international 
     companies, its long experience manufacturing light duty, 
     heavy duty, recreational and military vehicles, and its rich 
     legacy pioneering the development of the electric power train 
     makes the state a national hub for automotive technology 
     development. Indiana's proven experience positions it to be 
     the leader in next-generation batteries and electric drive 
     vehicles. Hoosier companies like Delco Remy and later Delphi 
     were ahead of their time in producing batteries systems for 
     advanced technology vehicles, leading the development of the 
     battery system for the EVI, GM's first and only electric 
     vehicle.
       Indiana already is home to a number of established and 
     emerging battery and electric vehicle technology companies. 
     Our state is- also a national hub for battery systems 
     development and testing for the defense and national security 
     industry with unique assets like the U.S. Navy's Naval 
     Surface Warfare Center Crane, which has forged strong 
     partnerships around energy storage technologies with several 
     top defense contractors across Indiana.
       In addition, Indiana's world-class research universities 
     including Purdue University, Indiana University-Purdue 
     University Indianapolis and the University of Notre Dame have 
     formed an active research and development partnership around 
     next-generation battery technology and are working with a 
     network of industry partners to accelerate technology 
     transfer. These university partners are also collaborating 
     with Indiana's statewide community colleges to develop new 
     degree programs and curriculums needed to prepare the Hoosier 
     workforce for advanced battery technology jobs.
       Most importantly, Hoosiers have committed themselves to the 
     goal of transforming our transportation sector. Diverse 
     stakeholders recognize that no one company has all the 
     answers and that success requires collaboration and 
     partnership that crosses multiple industry boundaries. 
     Hoosier companies have forged a number of joint partnerships 
     involving Fortune 500 companies, innovative start-ups anti 
     leading research institutions to leverage their assets and 
     accelerate the development of advanced battery and energy 
     technology solutions. Likewise, community support is 
     palpable, with a steady stream of interest from local 
     governments, schools, universities and non-government groups.
       We strongly believe that Indiana is the smart choice for 
     investment of grants, loans and other federal support for the 
     research, development and commercialization of advanced 
     automotive technologies and fuels. In particular, several 
     Hoosier companies have applied for existing grants and loans 
     through the $2 billion Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and 
     Component Manufacturing Initiative and the $25 billion 
     Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program. As 
     you evaluate these proposals, we encourage you to remember 
     the strong multiplier effect that will come by investing in a 
     state already committed and with a broad base of support and 
     experience.
       Indiana's automotive and energy technology industries are 
     uniquely positioned to participate in these new programs. 
     Their experience, technical expertise, and commitment to 
     collaboration would provide significant leverage for any 
     federal investment. Investing in Hoosier innovation will make 
     America safer, make our economy stronger and make our 
     environment cleaner.
       We strongly encourage you to give full consideration to the 
     innovative applications for federal investment made by 
     Indiana companies and institutions to accelerate the 
     commercialization of high performance, safe, and cost 
     effective advanced battery technologies.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
         Richard G. Lugar, Evan Bayh, Dan Burton, Peter J. 
           Visclosky, Steve Buyer, Mark E. Souder, Mike Pence, 
           Baron P. Hill, Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, Andre 
           Carson.
                                  ____



                                         United States Senate,

                                Washington, DC, February 16, 2011.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I was pleased on August 29th, 2010 when 
     you spoke at Xavier University on the fifth anniversary of 
     Hurricane Katrina about the will to keep up the fight to 
     recover from that catastrophic event. During the speech, you 
     spoke right to the survivors of the disaster and said, ``My 
     administration is going to stand with you--and fight 
     alongside you--until the job is done. Until New Orleans is 
     all the way back, all the way.''
       I am asking you to stand with me now. Based on the latest 
     estimates from the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     (FEMA), the Disaster Relief Fund is expected to be exhausted 
     in June. I understand that a minimum of $1.565 billion is 
     needed just to meet the costs of eligible projects for the 
     balance of this fiscal year. This shortfall is largely the 
     result of past catastrophic and major disasters, such as 
     Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, the Midwest floods of 
     2008, and the Tennessee floods of 2010.
       In the absence of an emergency supplemental request from 
     you, the House Republican Leadership has decided to include 
     $1.565 billion of non-emergency funding in H.R. 1, now 
     pending before the House. In order to pay for this funding, 
     H.R. 1 reduces funding for the Coast Guard, FEMA, and State 
     and local first responders and emergency managers, the very 
     agencies that are responsible for preparing for and 
     responding to future disasters. It is true that in these 
     tough economic times, it is critical that we make disciplined 
     funding decisions, but it makes no sense to strip agencies of 
     the resources they need to prepare for future disasters in 
     order to pay for the costs of past disasters. We simply 
     cannot return to the days when FEMA could not do its job. 
     Therefore, I ask you to submit, without delay, a request for 
     emergency supplemental funding.
       Without your request for the needed amount of funding, I am 
     concerned that history will soon repeat itself. Last year, 
     FEMA was forced to stop making payments for over five months 
     to my State and States across the Nation for recovery efforts 
     from past disasters. In addition to the $1.565 billion that 
     is necessary to continue disaster recovery this year, FEMA 
     estimates that $6 billion will be required in FY 2012-2014 to 
     pay for the recovery costs of past catastrophic disasters. 
     Such funding simply cannot be accommodated within the 
     existing budget of the Department of Homeland Security. I am 
     concerned that if only the amount to cover known costs for FY 
     2011 is requested, $1.565 billion, then FEMA and OMB will 
     once again have to stop making payments to States. There is 
     no reason for this to happen again. It is imperative that in 
     this and future budgets you request a sufficient amount of 
     funding for both the known costs of past disasters and the 
     estimated costs of future disasters.
       In your August 29th speech, you said, ``I wanted to make 
     sure that the federal government was a partner--not an 
     obstacle--to recovery here in the Gulf Coast.'' 
     Unfortunately, the budget process applied to the Disaster 
     Relief Fund is an obstacle to recovery in Louisiana and the 
     whole Nation. Your Administration has done a lot to help my 
     State of Louisiana recover. I ask for your renewed commitment 
     to continue that effort.
       With kindest regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                 Mary L. Landrieu,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____



                                         United States Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2011.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Based on the latest estimates from the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Disaster 
     Relief Fund is expected to be exhausted in June, at the very 
     beginning of the hurricane season. A minimum of $1.565 
     billion is needed just to meet the costs of eligible projects 
     for the balance of this fiscal year. This shortfall is 
     largely the result of past catastrophic and

[[Page 14370]]

     major disasters, such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, 
     and Ike, the Midwest floods of 2008, and the Tennessee floods 
     of 2010.
       There are currently 49 States that are recovering from 
     major disasters that you have declared under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Act. All of these recovery efforts would be put on 
     hold if FEMA is forced to stop disaster payments. Last year, 
     FEMA was forced to stop such payments for five months, 
     delaying recovery and increasing costs across the Nation. We 
     should not allow history to repeat itself.
       Further complicating this funding problem is the imminent 
     onset of the flood season. The National Weather Service is 
     projecting that the country is at risk of, ``moderate to 
     major flooding this spring'', particularly in the Midwest. 
     The tragic events in Japan have reminded us of the potential 
     consequences of a catastrophic disaster. In responding to a 
     catastrophic disaster such as Hurricane Katrina, the current 
     Disaster Relief Fund balance would be exhausted in three 
     days.
       In the absence of an emergency supplemental request from 
     you, the House Republican Leadership decided to include an 
     additional $1.565 billion of non-emergency funding for the 
     Disaster Relief Fund in H.R. 1. In order to pay for this 
     shortfall, H.R. 1 reduces funding for the Coast Guard, FEMA, 
     and State and local first responders and emergency managers, 
     the very agencies that are responsible for preparing for and 
     responding to future disasters. It is true that in these 
     tough economic times, it is critical that we make disciplined 
     funding decisions, but it makes no sense to strip agencies of 
     the resources they need to prepare for future disasters in 
     order to pay for the costs of past disasters. This problem 
     only gets worse next year. FEMA estimates the additional 
     shortfall in FY 2012 to be $3 billion.
       We simply cannot return to the days when FEMA could not do 
     its job. Therefore, we ask you to submit, without delay, a 
     request for emergency supplemental funding. H.R. 1, as it 
     passed the House, contains $159 billion of emergency funding 
     for Overseas Contingencies because the Department of Defense 
     cannot absorb the cost of the wars within its base budget. 
     Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security cannot absorb 
     the costs of catastrophic disasters in its base budget.
       Funding shortfalls in the Disaster Relief Fund with an 
     emergency designation is consistent with past practice, by 
     Democrats and Republicans alike. Since 1992, $110 billion out 
     of $128 billion appropriated to the DRF has been emergency 
     spending, primarily for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and 
     Ike, and 9/11. In your budget estimates, you have included an 
     allowance for disaster costs, a responsible recognition of 
     the potential costs of disasters. However, absent an 
     emergency supplemental request, this allowance is nothing 
     more than an unfilled promise to communities recovering from 
     disasters.
       We thank you for your consideration of this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
         Mary Landrieu, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tom Harkin, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Al Franken, Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer, 
           Richard Durbin, Jack Reed, Kent Conrad, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Frank Lautenberg, Ron Wyden, Jay Rockefeller.
                                  ____

                                             United States Senate,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2011.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On February 18, 2011 and March 17, 
     2011, I wrote you urging that you request an emergency FY 
     2011 supplemental to address the shortfall in funding in the 
     Department of Homeland Security Disaster Relief Fund. The 
     $1.2 billion shortfall for FY 2011 was largely the result of 
     past Presidentially-designated catastrophic disasters, such 
     as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, the Midwest 
     floods of 2008, and the Tennessee floods of 2010. 
     Regrettably, no request was submitted to the Congress. The 
     recent tornados make this request all the more urgent 
     demonstrating once again that natural disasters are indeed 
     unpredictable, expensive, and require our compassionate and 
     effective response.
       In the absence of an emergency supplemental funding 
     request, Congress had to make the difficult decision to cut 
     the base budget for the Department of Homeland Security by $1 
     billion to accommodate the shortfall in fiscal year 2011. The 
     only other alternative was for the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency (FEMA) to stop making payments for past 
     disaster recovery efforts when they were estimated to run out 
     of money in July of 2011, the beginning of the hurricane 
     season. Congress determined that it made no sense to compound 
     the pain of communities devastated by past disasters by 
     stopping the recovery process.
       As Chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations 
     Subcommittee, I am now drafting the FY 2012 Homeland Security 
     Appropriations bill. We have scrutinized your $43.6 billion 
     request. With one glaring exception, I find the request to be 
     balanced and responsive to the many threats that this Nation 
     faces. Regrettably, as in FY 2011, the request does not 
     include any funding to address what FEMA estimated before the 
     most recent disaster to be a $3 billion shortfall for the 
     Disaster Relief Fund for FY 2012.
       This past week, you told the victims of the tornados in 
     Alabama that you would make sure that they were not 
     forgotten. You made a similar promise in New Orleans on the 
     fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. These promises cannot 
     be fulfilled without funding for the recovery effort, efforts 
     that often take many years of sustained investment.
       It is true that in these tough economic times, we must make 
     disciplined funding decisions, but it makes no sense to strip 
     agencies of the resources they need to deter, prepare for, 
     and respond to future disasters in order to pay for the costs 
     of past disasters. Yet without leadership from the 
     Administration, we were forced, in the full-year continuing 
     resolution, to cut funding below your request for first 
     responder equipment and training grants, cyber security, port 
     security, transit security, and aviation security. Frankly, 
     given the increased threat of homegrown terrorism that you 
     eloquently spoke of in your State of the Union Address, and 
     the evolving threat that Secretary Napolitano has testified 
     to, these cuts were neither responsible nor cost-effective.
       Your FY 2012 request of $1.8 billion, which is based on a 
     projection of the five-year average of disaster costs 
     excluding catastrophic disasters, includes no funding for the 
     known costs of past catastrophic disasters. As a candidate, 
     you rightly criticized your predecessor for hiding known 
     costs from his budget.
       I urge you to seek emergency funding for the documented $3 
     billion shortfall for FY 2012. As you know, it is consistent 
     with past practice, by Democrats and Republicans alike, to 
     fund Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) shortfalls with an emergency 
     designation. Since 1992, $110 billion out of $131 billion 
     appropriated to the DRF has been true emergency spending. You 
     include in your budget an allowance for disaster costs, which 
     is a responsible recognition of the potential costs of 
     disasters. However, absent an emergency funding request, this 
     allowance is nothing more than an unfilled promise to 
     communities recovering from disasters.
       The Department of Homeland Security simply cannot absorb a 
     $3 billion shortfall in the proposed budget of $43.6 billion 
     for fiscal year 2012. Absent an emergency request, the 
     priorities that you have identified in your request to secure 
     the homeland will all regrettably be jeopardized.
       Congress will begin drafting fiscal year 2012 
     appropriations bill this month. In the continued uncertainty 
     of how the Administration will address the shortfall, I fear 
     the House will make the same irresponsible cuts it proposed 
     in H.R.1, only deeper, including cuts in FEMA, the 
     Transportation Security Administration, United States Coast 
     Guard, United States Secret Service, cyber, port, and transit 
     security, and grants to State and local governments to equip 
     and train first responders. In light of the threats this 
     Nation faces, such cuts make no sense.
       I ask that you submit an emergency funding request for the 
     estimated shortfall for fiscal year 2012 without delay. 
     Disaster victims in 49 States, including the victims of the 
     recent tornados that have crossed this Nation, would be 
     impacted if FEMA were forced to stop disaster recovery 
     payments next spring.

                       With kindest regards, I am

           Sincerely,

                                             Mary L. Landrieu,

                                                         Chairman,
     Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2011.
     Hon. Barack Obama,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As the waters of the Mississippi River 
     continue to rise each day, communities in the lower 
     Mississippi River valley are bracing for widespread flooding. 
     In my state of Louisiana, farms and towns along the 
     Mississippi and in the Atchafalaya Floodway are busy 
     preparing to safeguard lives and property from devastation, 
     and we need your help.
       The U.S. Army Corps and FEMA should continue their ongoing 
     efforts to notify individuals of the impending risk and help 
     them to escape from harm. I urge you to also move swiftly to 
     approve the pending and anticipated requests for disaster 
     declarations in the affected parishes of Louisiana, While I 
     appreciate the emergency declarations that have already been 
     issued for Louisiana and other states, more help will be 
     needed to fight the flood waters and help communities to 
     recover.
       Specifically, I believe that public and individual 
     assistance from FEMA, crop disaster, conservation, and 
     watershed assistance from USDA, fisheries disaster assistance 
     from NOAA, disaster loans from SBA, and housing vouchers and 
     recovery grants from HUD will be needed in some communities. 
     Further, I urge you to instruct all of these agencies to 
     perform expedited damage assessments in

[[Page 14371]]

     order to determine eligibility for Federal assistance.
       By all accounts, the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
     (MR&T) Project is performing as intended and critical 
     investments over many decades have paid huge dividends in 
     reducing damage. However, not all communities in the path of 
     these flood waters have adequate protection, and additional 
     system upgrades will ultimately be required. According to the 
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, only 88 percent of the MR&T 
     Project has been completed since its initiation after the 
     Great Flood of 1927. I call on you to join me in analyzing 
     these remaining needs and developing a strategy to address 
     them as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Mary L. Landrieu,
                                            United States Senator.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I see the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I think we all appreciate so much the 
passion and compassion our colleague from Louisiana has for the people 
of America--not just the people of Louisiana but all over America. I 
thank her for taking this fight and making sure people understand what 
we are fighting for. Being one of the other centrists in this body--and 
I think we have a majority right now--three of us--I appreciate all of 
us being in attendance.
  I rise today to address the enormous frustration the American people 
must feel witnessing their government and their leaders engaging in 
another futile political exercise. Our government is being driven--and 
I agree with the Senator from Louisiana that we are not going to shut 
down over this, but it is unbelievable to get into the fuss we are in 
right now, to make people believe we could come to the brink of another 
when we just went through this bloody mess in August.
  There is not a State in this great Nation that has not suffered the 
terrible tragedy and cost of a natural disaster. While there are many 
government programs and issues we should vigorously debate, we surely 
cannot question the responsibility of government to help our 
communities in their darkest moments. In the America I believe in, we 
don't look the other way when a community is suffering from the pain of 
a natural disaster. We stand to offer a helping hand. It is this spirit 
of helping each other that has defined this Nation since its very 
beginning, and we cannot let politics destroy that spirit.
  Our belief in helping each other is a bedrock value for this country, 
and it runs much deeper than a belief in a political party. We are 
Americans, and for the sake of this great Nation I know we all love, 
these petty squabbles that define this place must end. That is why we 
must fund FEMA disaster relief and why I voted for a Senate bill that 
would fund FEMA through the end of the fiscal year.
  Yes, we all agree that funding for disaster relief should be paid for 
in these most difficult times and especially now that we are looking at 
these deficits we have accrued. Yes, we must save and set aside that 
money. My grandfather once told me, Mr. President--and I think you can 
appreciate this, being a small businessperson--you can't give someone 
the shirt off your back if you don't have a shirt to give them. We have 
to plan and work hard to make sure we can put ourselves in position to 
help others.
  Yes, we must return to the path of fiscal responsibility where we 
manage our budgets wisely and put away enough money for the eventual 
disasters we know will strike. In my great State of West Virginia, we 
have a contingency fund. We know we are going to have floods and 
challenges throughout our State, and we set aside, every budget year, X 
amount of dollars, and we accumulate that to use for a crisis. We can 
do the same right here in this great country of ours and in the 
Nation's Capital.
  It is absolutely wrong--no ifs, ands, or buts about it--to pay for 
disaster relief out of funds that are creating jobs, with the potential 
of creating more jobs. Are there problems with some of the programs? 
Absolutely. Can we fix those programs? Absolutely. Should we eliminate 
programs that cost too much and offer little return? Absolutely. But 
are we so desperate to score political points that we eliminate a 
program--the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program--
which is actually helping to bring jobs back to America? For the 
record, that program is credited with saving or creating 39,000 
American jobs, most with the Ford Motor Company, an American 
manufacturer. It is something we need more of in this country. It is a 
program with support from both the chamber of commerce and the National 
Association of Manufacturers. In fact, Ford actually moved a hybrid 
battery facility from Mexico to Michigan because of this loan program. 
I can think of a lot of loan programs we should fight over, but are we 
really going to defund a program that has helped bring jobs back to 
America? I don't think so.
  So where do we go from here? Well, of my Republican and Democratic 
leaders, I respectfully ask them to consider how simple a choice we 
face. We can rebuild America or we can afford to pay for it. We can 
choose to fund FEMA or afford to pay for it. We can do all of this if 
we face the fact that we cannot continue to go into debt and spend 
billions in Afghanistan while suggesting that in order to fund FEMA, we 
must cut a program that actually helps to create jobs in America.
  As I have said before, we must choose between rebuilding Afghanistan 
or rebuilding America. Today, we can make that choice. I, along with 
many of you, choose to rebuild America. At a time when our economy is 
strugglingly and our deficit is exploding, I cannot believe we in 
Washington would choose to rebuild another nation at the expense of our 
own. We can do better for this, and for the sake of our Nation's 
future, we must to better than this. We should not engage in a 
political theater that makes the false choice between funding disaster 
relief or eliminating a jobs program that actually helped create 
American jobs.
  It is time for us to set our priorities. It is time for us to rebuild 
America, not to rebuild Afghanistan or Iraq. Helping America to rebuild 
during times of natural disaster must be a priority that cannot be 
defined by partisanship.
  In West Virginia alone, several projects worth nearly $\1/2\ million 
have now been put on hold because of the bickering and squabbling that 
goes on. Those projects include funding to help individuals whose 
property was damaged in the severe snowstorms in 2009, flooding in 
2010, as well as critical equipment that monitors waterflow in areas 
prone to flooding, equipment that is vital for forecasting river levels 
during our floods. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I know it 
doesn't make any sense to the people of West Virginia.
  I cannot believe that any American would choose to lose billions more 
in waste and corruption in Afghanistan while we ignore the needs of our 
neighbors here at home--our neighbors who just this year survived 
tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes, and who need shelter and food.
  I would like to offer the following amendment to offset the cost of 
funding FEMA by eliminating $1.6 billion from programs that will fund 
nation building in Afghanistan and instead direct that money to FEMA, 
to programs that rebuild America.
  I yield the floor.


                          affordable care act

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow for her work in 
protecting children's dental coverage. I want to clarify any confusion 
about the Finance Committee's intent when we adopted her amendment, C-
7, on pediatric dental coverage. As I understand it, her intent was to 
ensure that commercial stand-alone dental plans could participate 
fairly in an exchange and could also operate outside an exchange. The 
Senator expressly provided that these stand-alone dental plans could 
operate outside State or Federal exchanges.
  Ms. STABENOW. That is correct and I thank the Senator for all his 
efforts in support of children's dental coverage as well and for this 
opportunity to clarify the intentions of my amendment. I offered this 
amendment to allow competition in the marketplace

[[Page 14372]]

for dental benefits by allowing traditional stand-alone dental plans to 
participate both in and outside an exchange, just like health plans 
that provide coverage for medical care. The amendment ensured that 
stand-alone dental policies may fulfill the requirements of the 
essential health benefits package when paired with a qualified health 
plan covering all benefits other than pediatric oral health services 
within the exchange. To quote directly from the amendment, it indicated 
that ``required pediatric dental benefits in the non-group and small 
group markets (in and outside an exchange) may be separately offered 
and priced from other required health benefits.''
  Many American families today receive dental coverage through stand-
alone dental plans. Failure to properly implement the amendment as it 
was intended could result in serious disruptions in the dental coverage 
these families receive. That is why it is important that we get this 
right, and I appreciate the opportunity to make this clarification.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator for clarifying this issue.
  Also Senator Stabenow and I want to thank the Chairman for working so 
closely with us and a number of our colleagues to ensure that the 
Affordable Care Act includes children's oral health care as part of the 
essential benefits package that health insurers must offer in order to 
participate in health insurance exchanges. In doing so, we fully 
recognized that too many children suffer needlessly from dental 
problems that are overwhelmingly preventable and that oral health is 
integral to their overall health.
  Ms. STABENOW. Yes, I completely agree, Senator Bingaman. In fact our 
colleagues on the Finance Committee also overwhelmingly agreed that 
children must have access to oral health care, which is so critical to 
their overall well-being. We talked about the story of Deamonte Driver, 
a 12-year-old Maryland boy who died from a brain infection caused by 
tooth decay. He couldn't get access to an $80 dental procedure that 
would have saved his life. When his condition got worse, he ended up 
enduring two emergency surgeries, weeks of hospital care, and $250,000 
worth of medical bills--but it was all too late. Stories like this 
remind us of the importance of dental care for children, which is why 
the pediatric element of the essential health benefits package 
expressly includes oral care.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Senator Stabenow, I want to be sure that we clarify any 
confusion about the Finance Committee's intent when we adopted your 
amendment, C-7, on pediatric dental coverage. As I understand it, the 
Senator's intent was to ensure that commercial stand-alone dental plans 
could participate fairly in an exchange. When we adopted the Senator's 
amendment, we understood that children receiving coverage through an 
exchange would have the same level of benefits and consumer 
protections, including all cost sharing and affordability protections, 
with respect to oral care. This holds true whether they received 
pediatric oral care coverage from a stand-alone dental plan or from a 
qualified health plan.
  Ms. STABENOW. That is correct, Senator Bingaman, and I thank you for 
this opportunity to clarify my intentions. The amendment ensured that 
stand-alone dental policies may fulfill the requirements of the 
essential health benefits package when paired with a qualified health 
plan covering all benefits other than pediatric oral health services 
within the exchange. To be clear, I intended for stand-alone dental 
plans to fully comply with the same level of relevant consumer 
protections that are required of qualified health plans with respect to 
this essential benefit. To quote directly from my modified amendment C-
7 that was adopted in committee, ``. . . stand-alone dental plans must 
be allowed to offer the required pediatric dental benefits directly and 
to offer coverage through the Exchange and must comply with any 
relevant consumer protections required for participation in the 
Exchange.''
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator for clarifying this point.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I wish to thank Senator Bingaman for raising this issue, 
and Senator Stabenow for clarifying the intentions. I would like to 
echo the Senator's comments and reiterate the importance of ensuring 
that a full and affordable oral health benefit and the consumer 
protections we so carefully drafted apply equally to the pediatric oral 
care benefit whether offered by a stand-alone dental plan or a 
qualified health plan in an exchange.
  Mr. BINGAMAN: I thank Senators Baucus and Stabenow for their 
assistance in clarifying this issue.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the process by 
which this body is passing major legislation as we approach the end of 
this fiscal year. Last week we were asked, without debate or amendment, 
to pass at least a half dozen bills reauthorizing or extending expiring 
laws and spending authorities--some of which authorize the expenditure 
of billions of dollars over the next year.
  Actions such as this are a big part of what gives Washington a 
reputation for being dysfunctional. The fact that authorizations for 
many programs expire on September 30 each year is not a secret. Nor is 
it a secret when September 30 will come around each year. But instead 
of planning ahead, working for weeks or months to address a foreseeable 
need, and actually doing its work on time, Congress resorts to passing 
massive bills at the last minute when there is not time for serious 
scrutiny or changes.
  It is unconscionable this body would avoid debating such programs in 
a meaningful way. I would ask my colleagues, can you be sure these 
programs are working as efficiently as possible? Can you assure the 
American people the Federal Government is maximizing value for their 
tax dollars? Are these bills taking meaningful steps to eliminate waste 
and duplication within these programs?
  We would know the answers to those questions if these bills had gone 
through the normal process of consideration in committees and on the 
Senate floor. Senators would have the chance to ask questions to the 
officials administering the programs and propose changes to them. 
Instead, we are faced with bills that have had very little--if any--
process in the Senate at a time where even a week's delay to consider 
the bills will result in the programs expiring. That is unacceptable 
and should be embarrassing to the Senate as an institution.
  We need to change the way Congress does its business. Part of that is 
reining in excessive spending and having more robust debates regarding 
the allocation of scarce taxpayer dollars. We must do better in the 
future.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, over the last week or so I have outlined, 
here and in a letter to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit 
Reduction, a seven-part plan to reduce the deficit in ways that do not 
overburden American working families or damage economic growth. In my 
letter and in three previous speeches on the Senate floor, I have 
pointed out that revenues, and not just spending cuts, are necessary if 
we are to achieve significant deficit reduction. And I have discussed 
four proposals for restoring revenues: combating offshore tax havens; 
ending the corporate stock option loophole; and ending loopholes for 
hedge fund managers and derivatives traders.
  Today I want to discuss three additional changes to our tax system 
that will make it more efficient and more equitable. We should make two 
tax rate changes: ending the unsustainable Bush-era tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans, and restoring capital gains tax rates to 
something approaching the rates in place under President Reagan. Also, 
we should replace the IRS's antiquated tax lien system. These 
proposals, combined with the other points of my plan, could reduce the 
deficit on the order of $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Now, some of my colleagues may balk at the notion of reversing years 
of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. But I believe if we take 
off our ideological blinders, if we look at facts--hard, stubborn 
facts--the need for these reforms is clear.

[[Page 14373]]

  First, we should allow Bush-era tax cuts to end for those making more 
than $250,000. The case for this change is straightforward: It would 
restore a measure of fairness to the tax code that has been sadly 
lacking for more than a decade, and it would reduce the deficit by 
hundreds of billions of dollars.
  Supporters of the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 made a number of 
promises. President Bush said his cuts ``will bring real and immediate 
benefits to middle-income Americans.'' And yet in the decade since they 
began, the incomes of middle-class Americans have stagnated. According 
to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical American household's income, 
when adjusted for inflation, actually fell more than 8 percent from 
2001 to 2010. President Bush said his tax cuts would increase the pace 
of job creation. And yet during the Bush years, jobs grew at roughly 
one-third the rate that we enjoyed during the Clinton administration. 
President Bush said ``we can proceed with tax relief without fear of 
budget deficits, even if the economy softens.'' And yet just those tax 
cuts going to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans have added hundreds 
of billions of dollars to the deficit since 2001. So, these tax cuts 
have failed to deliver the promised benefits, and they have driven us 
deeper and deeper into debt. Ending them will bring down the deficit; 
President Obama's proposal to end the cuts for high-income earners 
would reduce the deficit by an estimated $866 billion over 10 years.
  What these tax cuts did deliver is a striking and continuing rise in 
income inequality. It's no coincidence that as we passed a series of 
tax cuts whose benefits overwhelmingly flow to the wealthiest 
Americans, those wealthy individuals have seen their fortunes rise. A 
few decades ago, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans took home 10 
percent of all income. Today, they get 24 percent of all income. As 
those at the top have prospered greatly, middle-class wages have 
stagnated--again, down more than 8 percent, for the median American 
household, since the Bush tax cuts took effect.
  A second proposal also would bring down the deficit and bring more 
fairness to the tax code: restoring capital gains tax rates closer to 
those in place during the Reagan administration. Capital gains are 
income from the increase in value of an asset, such as a stock. Today, 
thanks to the Bush-era tax cuts, the top rate on capital gains is 15 
percent. That's substantially lower than the 28 percent rate included 
in President Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986.
  The theory in slashing capital gains tax rates was that lower rates 
would encourage investment, job creation and economic growth. But as 
has been the case with slashing ordinary income tax rates for the 
wealthy, cutting capital gains taxes simply has not delivered what 
supporters promised. Given the stagnation in middle-class living 
standards that we have seen since the 1980s, it is difficult to argue 
to middle-class Americans that reducing capital gains rates made them 
better off.
  Instead, this is another benefit that flows overwhelmingly to the 
wealthiest among us. According to the Tax Policy Center, more than 75 
percent of the benefit from lower capital gains taxes goes to those 
with incomes over $1 million a year, and 94 percent of the benefit to 
those above $200,000.
  This tax break for the most fortunate of our citizens also adds tens 
of billions of dollars each year to the deficit. The Congressional 
Budget Office earlier this year estimated that raising the capital 
gains rate by just 2 percentage points would reduce the deficit by 
about $50 billion over 10 years. Raising the top rate closer to Reagan-
era levels would bring far more deficit reduction.
  Those who fight to preserve these high-income tax cuts call attempts 
to end them ``class warfare.'' Ending these tax breaks won't start a 
class war. It will help end one--a war that, for more than a decade, 
has taken a devastating and immediate toll on the middle class, and 
created huge new deficits that damage their future prospects as well.
  The simple fact is that if we are to ensure that the burden of 
deficit reduction falls equitably, and that all our citizens are asked 
to contribute toward this goal, we must address these upper income tax 
cuts that have helped balloon the deficit. Deficit reduction will 
require spending cuts, and some of those cuts will fall hard on working 
families. But we can't ask them to carry the entire burden. That would 
be contrary to common sense, because spending cuts alone cannot achieve 
real deficit reduction. And it would be contrary to any sense of 
fairness. We all have to contribute.
  Our constituents are speaking, and speaking loudly, on this topic. 
And they are speaking eloquently. Let me tell you about an email I 
received from a constituent a few weeks ago about our deficit.
  This Michigan resident and her husband consider themselves upper 
middle class--though she wrote that ``many would call us wealthy.'' She 
wrote to me that we need to cut spending, and to compromise to do it. 
``I will like some cuts and hate others and that is OK with me!'' she 
wrote.
  But she also wrote: ``I also strongly urge you to consider passing 
what many would call tax hikes. . . . We are willing to pay a bit more 
to help our country and safeguard our children's futures.'' Upper 
income Americans, she wrote, ``aren't paying taxes at a fair and just 
rate. Fix this.''
  And we should fix it. This constituent of mine said she was part of a 
``silent majority'' in favor of increasing revenue. I am not sure how 
silent they are, but she is certainly part of a majority. In a recent 
Washington Post-ABC News poll, 72 percent of Americans--and 54 percent 
of Republicans--said they favored increasing taxes on those who make 
more than $250,000 a year as part of our deficit reduction strategy. 
Americans are strongly in favor of a balanced approach to deficit 
reduction that protects working families. They are asking us to fight 
for the middle class, and it is time we did so.
  Let me discuss briefly the tax lien proposal. Tax liens are a basic 
tool to collect unpaid taxes. Today, Federal law requires liens to be 
filed on paper in more than 4,000 locations around the country, 
determined by the location of the lien. The IRS maintains a service 
center that does nothing but monitor dozens of varying local 
requirements for lien filings, track filings, and release liens once 
they are paid.
  I have introduced legislation, S. 1390, along with Senator Begich, to 
replace this antiquated system with an electronic federal tax lien 
registry available to the public on the Internet at no cost. The IRS 
estimates that this change would not only save millions of dollars in 
administrative costs, but also enable the IRS to release liens more 
quickly once they have been paid and free up employees and resources 
for other work. Equally important, a public electronic registry could 
help encourage those who owe taxes to settle their bills and take 
enormous pressure off taxpayers who have paid what they owe.
  Let me come back to where I started last week. Congress faces a 
difficult task in the weeks ahead. We must agree to $1.2 trillion or 
more in deficit reduction over the next decade. Failure to agree on a 
plan means automatic budget cuts through the sequestration process--
including greatly damaging cuts to defense and other important Federal 
programs.
  In my letter to the Joint Select Committee and here on the floor, I 
have outlined ways to avoid that outcome, proposing commonsense changes 
that bring equity to our Tax Code and restore lost revenue. If we 
reject that course, it almost certainly means damaging cuts in 
important programs--programs that keep our nation safe, that keep our 
faith with senior citizens and veterans, and that prepare our children 
for the future. Rejecting that course almost certainly means a failure 
to significantly reduce the deficit, because spending cuts alone are 
not enough to accomplish the deficit reduction we need.
  The choice is ours. I hope we will not allow ideology to blind us to 
the reality of our budget situation, to the needs of middle-class 
families, or to the strong and consistent message from Americans who 
are demanding a

[[Page 14374]]

balanced approach to reducing the deficit.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining on the Democratic 
side.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia is 
absolutely right. We have tens of billions of unspent dollars sitting 
in accounts for Iraq and Afghanistan for rebuilding roads and such 
there. Let's spend it in America. Let's spend it on America. It is 
American tax dollars. Let's spend it on America.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Has the time arrived for the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. In fact, before we do that, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is 
not invoked on the pending Reid motion to concur with an amendment, the 
majority leader be recognized to withdraw the pending motion to refer 
and the pending motion to concur with an amendment; that the majority 
leader be recognized to offer a new motion to concur with an amendment, 
the text of which is at the desk--amendment No. 665; that there be no 
amendments, points of order, or motions in order to the Reid motion to 
concur other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to 
waive; that there be up to 10 minutes of debate equally divided between 
the two leaders or their designees prior to vote a vote on adoption of 
the Reid motion to concur with an amendment; further, that the Reid 
motion be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold; that if the Reid 
motion to concur with an amendment is agreed to, the Senate proceed to 
the consideration of H.R. 2017 and that the majority leader be 
recognized to offer an amendment, the text of which is at the desk; 
that it be the only amendment in order to the bill; that the amendment 
be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time, and the 
Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, all with no 
intervening action or debate; and that if the Reid motion to concur 
with an amendment is not agreed to, the majority leader be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The legislative clerk 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 Reid motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     2608, with an amendment No. 656.
         Harry Reid, Daniel K. Inouye, Tom Udall, Charles E. 
           Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Mary L. Landrieu, Patty 
           Murray, Patrick J. Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, Benjamin 
           L. Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Maria 
           Cantwell, Daniel K. Akaka, Jack Reed, Debbie Stabenow, 
           Kay R. Hagan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
2608, with an amendment No. 656, offered by the Senator from Nevada, 
Mr. Reid, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory 
under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. 
Cantwell) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), 
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Coburn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     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
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Hutchison
     Kirk
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Webb
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54 and the nays are 
35. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Under the previous order, I now withdraw my pending motion 
to refer and motion to concur with an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motions are withdrawn.


                Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 665

  Mr. REID. I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 2608 with an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to concur in the 
     House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2608, with an 
     amendment numbered 665.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the previous order, there will be now 
up to 10 minutes of debate, equally divided between the two leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know everyone is in a hurry, and I will be 
as fast as I can.
  Tonight can best be summed up by Johnny Isakson, the Senator from 
Georgia, who said: It is only worth fighting when there is something to 
fight for.
  We have basically resolved this issue. I wish to recognize the 
leadership of Senator Landrieu. She chairs the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee on Appropriations. She is our expert on disaster. She has 
done a wonderful job of maintaining this in the eyes of the public.
  In Friday morning's vote, we established, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 
that the Senate can't pass the House-passed CR. It got 36 votes. We 
couldn't pass it no matter what happens. With today's vote, Senate 
Republicans are showing they will back up the House vote on the 
question of offsetting spending in 2011. That is the vote we just took. 
But today's news also points a way that is more understanding and 
certainly a way out. Today's news story has come out saying FEMA 
disaster aid has enough money to last

[[Page 14375]]

through this fiscal year. This afternoon, I received word from Jack 
Lew, of OMB, and FEMA that they will be able to get through the week 
without additional funding. That means they can get through the fiscal 
year without more money. I think it is very clear this is the right way 
to go. It shows us the way out and means we no longer have to fight 
2011 funding.
  I repeat what I said at the very beginning; that is, the way out is 
to focus on 2012. If we no longer need 2011 funding, then we can pass a 
bill that funds just 2012. This compromise should satisfy Republicans. 
It includes their own 2012 FEMA funding number, and it should satisfy 
the Democrats because it does not include the offsets we have talked 
about so much. It would be a win for everyone because we could end 
without another government crisis.
  I appreciate Senator McConnell for being understanding and working 
with us in this regard. But I end this from where I started, Senator 
Johnny Isakson: Let's fight when there's something to fight about. 
There is nothing to fight about tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am going to very briefly walk us 
through where we have been and where we are.
  After tonight's vote, I think the best path forward is clear. The 
quickest and surest way to get FEMA all the disaster funds it needs and 
to put an end to any talk of government shutdown would have been for 
the Senate to take up and pass the House-passed CR right away.
  As we know, our friends on the other side will not agree to that. 
However, earlier today, as we all know, FEMA indicated it already has 
the funds it needs for the duration of the current CR--which is, 
basically, this week--without the billions more in funding Democrats 
have been calling for.
  Quite frankly, I think this is a vindication of what Republicans have 
been saying all along: Before we spend the taxpayers' money, we should 
have a real accounting--a real accounting--of what is actually needed.
  We also believe that, in these days of huge deficits, we need to 
prioritize our spending around here.
  That said, with this next vote, I think the majority leader has found 
a path forward, one that will continue to fund the government and which 
gives FEMA the funds it needs without any added emergency spending for 
the rest of this current fiscal year--in other words, this week--
emergency funds that FEMA now says it doesn't need.
  So tonight we will have had, after the next vote, two votes: One to 
reject deficit finance disaster spending without necessary spending 
cuts elsewhere and one to keep the government operational and to 
provide responsible disaster funding into November.
  The CR, should it pass, will be within the top line we agreed to last 
summer. We have already basically voted on this top line. It will 
provide FEMA $2.65 billion in funding next fiscal year to continue the 
recovery efforts. It will not contain any emergency spending for this 
current fiscal year--the rest of this week. So it will drop both the 
emergency spending and the provisions paying for that spending from the 
House-passed bill.
  Again, my preferred path forward would have been to pass the House 
bill. But since our friends on the other side have rejected that 
approach, I believe this is a compromise that is a reasonable way to 
keep the government operational.
  So now that we have demonstrated that there aren't enough votes to 
support more on offset spending, I am going to vote, and would 
encourage my colleagues to vote, in favor of the clean CR, which is the 
next vote we are going to have.
  In my view, this entire fire drill was completely and totally 
unnecessary, but I am glad a resolution appears to be at hand.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. This, tonight, is the Johnny Isakson solution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with an amendment 
No. 665, offered by the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid).
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), 
the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), and the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Burr).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--12

     Ayotte
     Blunt
     Crapo
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Hutchison
     Kirk
     Moran
     Murkowski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 79, the nays are 
12. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the motion to concur with an amendment is agreed to.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

                          ____________________