management agency has a budget, fema has a budget, but you can't predict the number and scope of natural disasters. no one had predicted that this storm would be as widespread as it was. hurricane irene affected the entire east coast of the united states. fema did not have in its budget that type of a scenario, along with the scenarios that we have had, along with what's happened in the midwest. during recent times. this affects our entire country. now the people on the east coast of the united states are looking to the federal government to be there, and we have always done

this, as i said, in a bipartisan manner without the requirement that if additional moneys are needed, those moneys will be appropriated by congress. we will not ask other agencies to have to contribute towards that because that was not anticipated when we did the budget. madam president, i might point out, we had a very contentious fight over the budget control act. that's the bill we passed that allowed us to increase our debt ceiling and set our budget allocations for fy 2012, the year that will start on october 1. but, as you know, there was an agreement in that budget control act that permits the modification of the fy 2012 discretionary cap to be adjusted to accommodate additional disaster relief funding without an offset.

that's what we did. we came together as one entity, recognizing -- recognizing that we can't predict the next hurricane storm, earthquake, flood, tornado. we just can't predict that. so, therefore, democrats and republicans said, adjust the cap. meet whatever disaster is out there. whether it was katrina in louisiana, whether it is a bridge falling down in minnesota that the presiding officer had to deal with, whether it's tornadoes we had in the midwest, droughts and floods that's occurred in our country, we will be there to help the people of america. we helped rebuild countries around the world. we want to make sure we're helping in the communities. i was with my colleagues from vermont, and they shared with us the number of bridges that have been wiped out in the state of vermont.

people who have been isolated as a result of hurricane irene and then the tropical storm lee. we have a responsibility, and we recognize that in the budget agreement that we would adjust the caps, without setoffs, so that the federal government can be there as a true partner in dealing with these issues. we were there for preparation. it's now time to help restore the communities. in some cases it will take months before we're back to normal. we know that. the people know that. but they have a right to expect that the federal government will be there to help. i want to commend senator landrieu, the chair of the homeland security subcommittee of the appropriations committee, nor inouye and the members of the senate appropriations committee. they recognize that. they have given us a recognize that will accommodate the extra

needs so that fema will have the resources it wants. i want to thank president obama. his budget request to us reflects the resources we need. so we have the recommendation from our appropriations committee, we have the leadership from the white house, now it's time for us to act. we have the vehicle on the floor of the senate. it's time for us to give the resources to the federal agencies so they can be there in all parts of this country, including helping the people of maryland cope with the disaster of hurricane irene and tropical storm lee and the other natural disasters that have happened in other parts of the country by taking up this issue now, passing it at this moment so the funds are there the resources are there. we can live up to the historical mission of the united states to always be there to help any part of our nation that's affected by

a natural disaster. i hope that we will be able to bring this issue up quickly. it should not -- and the vote in the senate appropriations committee indicated it shouldn't be delayed because of offset issues. we should get the funds and resources to the agency that's needed, working with our state and local governments, wogging with our -- working with our local communities so that we can try to restore and rebuild those areas that have been devastated by these natural disasters. i would urge us to do that as quickly as possible. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the leader -- the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i rise today to bid a fond farewell to a man who's been a fix tour in the united states senate for 33 years, tim owe keating of the senate disbursing office is retiring after more than three decade of service to his country. known to many as a loyal friend and well-liked by everyone he has met in these halls, including most of my colleagues and thousands of senate staffers. he will be greatly missed. tim began his career with the disbursing office in the u.s. senate in 1978. every senate employee becomes familiar with that office early in their tenure because that is the office in charge of the

senate payroll. as well as everything relating to an employee's compensation, payroll deductions, retirement, life and health insurance and other benefits. the disbursing office used to be located in the capitol when tim started. in fact, it was located in s. 233, which is now part of the republican leader's office. during tim's early years on the job, staffers and senators alike would line up in the hallways on payday to receive their paychecks. maybe that is how tim became legendary for never forgetting a face or a name for so many members of this very large senate family and always having a kind word for every one of them. the disbursing office moved in 1980 when my predecessor, howard baker, expanded the republican leader's suite of offices. that's how tim and his

co-workers now ended up with their familiar location on the first floor of the hart building. tim has kidded me about that a few times over the years. so on behalf of the republican leader's office, let me take this opportunity to apologize to tim for being booted from his perch. tim is a native washingtonian. he attended st. johns college high school and the university of south carolina, which has a heck of a good football team this year. just as tim is loyal to the u.s. senate, he is a loyal alumnus of both these institutions. he goes to columbia, south carolina, every year to see south carolina play football. tim's also a great fan of the washington redskins -- who amazingly enough are off to a good start this year, has season tickets and has been attending their games since his boyhood. he loved to talk football, college or pro, with folks in the office, but be careful if you're a cowboys fan. tim's father, george o'keefe,

was a distinguished veteran who fought in world war ii. his mother gisella o'keefe worked for the district of columbia school system at alice deal middle school. i know they would both be proud to see how well liked and well respected their son has become. tim also has a brother dennis who lives in south carolina and tim lives in alexandria with his teenaged son connor. when the disbursing office held a retirement party for tim a few weeks ago, he got quite the send-off. it was the day of the historic earthquake. felt all over eastern north carolina from quebec city to atlanta and centered about 90 miles away in central virginia. as tim was opening his presents, the ground began to shake and the capitol complex was soon evacuated. it's almost as if washington, d.c., itself was protesting that it did not want tim to go. indeed, it will be hard for many

to imagine the senate with tim gone. he has the longest tenure of anyone in the disbursing office today and thousands of senate staffers know him as the man who led them in the federal oath of office they take on their first day on the job. the same oath the vice president of the united states administers to senators at the beginning of their six-year terms. in his retirement, tim will have time to pursue his many interests, including his love of horse racing. he is a particular fan of lexington, kentucky's kingland racetrack. i would be remiss if i didn't mention that today, the day of his retirement, is also tim's birthday. so, mr. president, i know that many on capitol hill after hearing about his retirement have taken a moment to say thank you and goodbye to tim o'keefe. i wanted to make sure i was one of them. he will be missed here in the u.s. senate and we're grateful, very grateful, for his 3 years

of service. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. harkin: mr. prek

that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that christina wright of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, yesterday, the census bureau released information about poverty income and health insurance in our country, and the news was, in short, devastating. the number of people in poverty is at an all-time high. income gains over the last decade have been totally wiped out. americans are struggling more than ever before. i'm appalled by these facts, and i know my colleagues are, too. today i want to talk about these numbers but i want to talk about what we can do about them. i want to talk about where our country's priorities must be and

how we have to focus on rebuilding the middle class in light of the new census numbers. so yesterday, we learned that 46.2 million people in america were poor last year. that's more than 15% of americans. and let me remind my colleagues what this really means. the poverty line for a family of four with two adults and children is $22,000 a year -- is slightly over $22,000 a year. can anyone here in this body -- and we all know what we make, every senator, every congressman, except the leadership, they get paid a bill lit more, make $174,000 a year. just think to yourself could you and your spouse and two children live on $22,000 a year? $425 a week. but beyond that, we also learned

that deep poverty, that's families with incomes less than half the poverty line, is also at the highest rate on record. more than 20 million americans lived in deep poverty last year. that's less than $11,000 a year for a family of four. that's almost mind-boggling. how do people live like that? our children are suffering incredibly high levels of poverty. the census bureau pointed out 22%, one out of every five kids in america, were poor last year. when compared to other industrialized nations, the oecd countries, the united states has among the highest rates of child poverty in the world. that's just inexcusable. it's a national crisis. there ought to be something that we could be discussing here on the senate floor daily. in addition to our children,

other vulnerable populations are suffering as well. people with disabilities continue to face higher poverty than people without disabilities. about 28%, almost one out of three individuals with disability in america were poor compared with 12.5% of those without disabilities, twice the rate. minorities also face devastating levels of poverty. more than a quarter of blacks and hispanics, one in four, 25%, are in poverty in america. again, keep in mind, for a family of four, that's less than $22,000 a year. 25% of blacks and hispanics are in poverty. 10% of whites, 13% of asians. these disparities are deeply, deeply troubling. more than 10 million black and hispanic children woke up this morning in a household

struggling with poverty. again, we have to remember, while i talk about these as numbers, this is a real story. there's a real family, a real individual, a real child behind every one of them. 46 million stories about families sitting around their kitchen table, if they're even lucky enough to have one, struggling to figure out how to make ends meet. stories of people choosing about whether to pay the rent or pay the utility bills. choosing whether to pay for diapers or comaition medication for their kids, choosing whether to put food on the table or gas lien in the car so they might goat a minimum-wage part-time job someplace. this shouldn't be happening in america. we've heard a lot of talk and i've heard senators and members of the house in speeches recently talking about how we can't afford this and we can't afford that because, let's face it, we're broke. we're broke. we're deeply in debt in this country and we're broke.

mr. president, i beg to differ. the united states of america is today the richest country in the history of the world. the richest country in the history of the world. per capita income is the highest of any country in the world -- well, any major country. irm a told that the tiny principle pallet of montana no cohas a -- i'm told that the tine knee principality of monoco is the highest. the richest country in the world, the richest country in the history of the world. if we're so rich, why are we so broke? we're not poor. we're the richest country in the world. so what the census report yesterday points out is it is a wake-up call that we're failing -- we're failing our most

vulnerable citizens, we're failing to provide a ladder evidence opportunity to people who -- to provide a ladder of opportunity to people to become part of the middle class. we're destroying hope. first and foremost this report yesterday graphically illustrates how dangerous it would be if we as lawmakers give in to the current atmosphere of budget hysteria, fear, failism that's how going on on capitol hill. and by giving in to it, we eviscerate the essential economic security programs just because somehow we want to secure political points. political points -- well, people all know most people in poverty have a higher rate of not voting than wealthier people. we know that. so i guess if we want to get votes, you appeal to people who have money. and if you want to get elected, you appeal to people who have money because they're the ones

who give you money to get elected by -- and big corporationsment and so the poor are kind of forgotten about. so if we get into this budget hysteria, the first people that are usually hurt are the most vulnerable of our citizens. the census bureau's numbers show again, without question, how effective and important these safety net programs are to keeping millions of people out of poverty. social security alone -- social security alone, according to the census numbers, kept 20 million people above the poverty line. but for social security, 20 million more people would fall below the poverty line. unemployment insurance kept 3.2 million more people out of poverty. we've always known these were crucial programs. now we know just how important they are. other programs, if they were

counted by the official poverty measure -- which they aren't -- would have lifted millions more out of poverty. for example, the snap program -- food stamps -- helped 3.9 million people who are in poverty feed their families. the income tax credit helped 35.9 million more people. without these crucial safety net programs, the poverty situation would be much, much worse. and yet, mark my word, when these -- this supercommittee that's meeting or whether we go into some kind of a sequestration or whatever that means around here, are we going to cut back on the food stamp program, going to cut back on unemployment insurance, maybe cut back on social security, as some may want to do, and social security benefits? that just means more people will fall below the poverty line. i think the second lesson we can learn from this report is about

the crippling effect that falling paychecks and rising inequality are having on our economy. income went down again last year. real median household income was $49,500. that's down 2.3% from the year before, down 6.4% since the start of the recession. now, this is not just the effects of the recession. these are long-term economic trends that have caused a dramatic increase in the income inequality in this country, and it's been going on for at least the last three decades. little bit by little bit by little bit. to the point now where we have a huge disparity in income disparity in this country. now, again, paychecks for american workers are not falling because they aren't without objectioning as -- because they aren't working hard os working less. according to the "help" committee, the typical american people is working more than 500

hours longer per year now than they were in 1979. got that. the typical american family is working 500 hours longer per year than they were in 1979. in addition to working longer, their productivity, measured by the bureau of labor statistics, has continued to rise. so what's happened? we're working longer, more production, more unit-per-person per hour of work around yet wanings are falling. why is that? you would think that wainls and benefits would have gone up with longer hours and more productivity. well, that's not accident what . it is not that companies can't afford to pay their workers more. profit margins of standard & poor's's largest companies are at their highest levels since the late-1960's.

what's happened since the late-1960's, since 1979, is that the executives have shifted revenues from workers' paychecks to the corporate bottom lines and their own pockets. more to profit, more to capital, less to labor. we can't allow these trends to continue. the economists across the political spectrum agree that a major cause of our current economic stagnation is a chronic lack of demand. for nearly three decades, workers' incomes have been stagnant, working families lack the purchasing power to drive america's consumer economy. without adequate demand, businesses are leeluctant to hire. until we rates number on people's paychecks and the number of people work #-g and making a paycheck, the economy will never recover. the final lesson i think we can learn from yesterday's census report is about health care. there's a small, silver lining here.

while the recession is obviously continuing to impact health care coverage, there are some signs that the early stages of implementation of the affordable care act -- that's the health care reform bill -- is making a difference. while the census data shows that the number of uninsured increased from 16.1% to 16.3% of the population, the census bureau deemed this not statisticky different, the affordable care act's requirement that health plans provide dependent coverage to young adults to stay in their parents' policy until age 26 is making a difference. the data from the christia censt shows that the 18-24 age group was the only group to experience a significant increase in the percentage of health insurance over the past year, up to 72.8% from 70% in 2009. so again a small silver lining there in terms of health care coverage for our younger

population. so it is a modest step forward for young americans, but the overall picture that the census report reveals is a nation, the united states of america, on the brink of a crisis. it should be call to action. now, the president's jobs bill is a good start. we have to create more jobs, not just any jobs but good-quality jobs that pay decent wages and benefits. a job should lift a family out of poverty and not keep a family in it. now, again, mr. president, i've been paying attention a little bit to the -- some of the debates that have been going on notice other party. i was looking at the figures from the state of texas that more jobs have been created in texas than any other part of the country. upon further examination, during the last ten years, if i'm mott mistaken -- at least the figur s show this -- that the state of

texas had more of an increase in minimum-wage jobs than all of the other 49 states put together. that's the future? minimum-wage jobs, $7.25 an hour? that's just slightly over $14,000 a year, just slightly over the poverty line. that should -- that should be something to brag about? that we're creating more minimum-wage jobs? as i said, we need jobs that will lift families out of poverty, not keep them down buried on the poverty level. lastly, mr. president, i've said so many times here on the floor, we'll not be able to attack the problem of poverty until we have a strong middle class and a clear path for people to be able to become middle-class citizens. that means we should invest more in education, more in innovation, more in infrastructure building in this country.

it means restoring a level playing field with fair taxation -- fair taxation. why should warren buffett, to repeat something that the president said the other night, why should warren buffett pay less of a percentage of his income than his secretary? you wonder why people get cynical about government. of course they're cynical. got every reason to be cynical when we pass these laws around here, we tax capital at a lower rate than we tax labor. why should someone who is laboring and working be taxed at twice the rate as sun who maybe in-- as someone who maybe inherited a lot of money and they're puttin putting it all io capital gains and they're paying half the rate of taxes that somebody is out there working for. why is that fair? why is that fair? well, we also need vibrant unions, vibrant unions that can

bargain collectively with their people, wages, hours, conditions of employment. we need a strong ladder of opportunity to give every american access to the middle class. so, again, yesterday's poverty numbers told a a bleak story about 46 million americans who can't make ends meet. well, i hope that next year at this time when the new exren success numbers come out -- the new census numbers come out we'll begin to tell a different story, about how we acted boldly to help these people turn their lives around and build a brighter future. a nation that is strong and vibrant and as rich -- as rich -- as the united states of america, no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty. we shouldn't rest until that vision becomes a reality. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: g officer: the

senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that i be he can

recognized. officer sphe without objection. mr. schumer: i ask that stair a bob cock and diane fiddler be granted floor privileges during the burma and as does fer relief bills. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. there has been a promising new tone in congress since our return from the cornel recess. this has taken some by surprise. but even more striking than the new tone is that it has brought with it a few modest signs of a new spirit of cooperation. the house has since the a highway extension and aviation extension harass clean. during august there were clamors from some corners in the other party to mount a fight over the gas tax or insist on harmful cuts to road and bridge repair, even if these demands risked a shutdown of road construction projects. as recently as last friday, republicans were planning to

insist on a 5% cut to the f.a.a. budget, a move that could well have threatened another shutdown of that agency like we saw in awsmght but both fears fortunately have receded. barring a setback in the senate, we should be able to extend both the f.a.a. and highway measures on time and without controversy. this is a very positive sign. there was a sour taste left in everyone's mouth at the end of the debt ceiling debate and that is causing a change in behavior. it is actually bringing us together. that process was made unnecessarily difficult because of the extreme tactics of a block within the house. the political process broke down and the public noticed. in the aftermath of that debate, it seems everyone finally realizes that there is a premium on reasonableness. the public di does not want to e more of the "my way or the

highway" approach that has been exhibited by some in the house. that's why it was head scratching earlier this week to hear a new rumor in the capitol that the house republican leadership might consider seeking to reopen the debt ceiling fight and ignoring the agreed-upon spending level for 2012 fiscal year. as you know, mr. president, the deal included a topline budget number of $1.043 trillion for the fiscal year that begins october 1. this was a significant cut, an actual cut, from the fiscal 2011 level of $7 billion. this agreement was ratified by all of those who voted for the final debt ceiling agreement. it was hailed as one of the better aspects of the overall debt ceiling deal because it would mean a lesser likelihood of another budget fight on september 30. however, since this number was agreed to, some extreme

republicans have started looking to cause trouble. they have tried to see the $7 billion in cuts represented by the $1.043 trillion figure as a floor, not a ceiling. this would be a violation not just of the spirit of the debt limit deal but the letter of the debt deal. the public will not stand for another budget fight. republicans should understand that more brinksmanship on the budget at the end of september is not in either side's interest. now some thankfully -- and the house leadership seem to realize this -- majority leader cantor warned against picking another budget fight. he wrote, "while all of us would have liked to have seen a lower discretionary appropriations ceiling for the upcoming fiscal year, the debt limit agreement did set a level. it is in our interest to enact into law full-year

appropriations bills at in this new lower level." and leader cantor affirmed these remarks earlier this week. i say to my republican colleagues, a deal is a deal. it's hard to imagine you would go back on the debt limit agreement but if you are even considering it, please stop. we already will likely need to take next time resolving what level of fema funding we should appropriate for fiscal year 2012. early indications are that some house republicans may want to short change the level of funding fema -- early indications are that house republicans may want to shortchange the level of funding fema says it needs for next year. i can't imagine why anyone would want to play games with disaster relief. but if they want to debate that, they should not also be tying it to another budget fight that we've already resolved and

nearly caused a default for the first time in american history. we should not go back over those pages. we've had enough debates on the docket without reopening the ones we've already settled. the public, mr. president, -- the public is tired of these fights. and the public understands who cines city debating them. to the house republicans i say, don't go back on your word on the c.r. leader kantor was right when he said you should abide by the level agreed to over the sumplet stick with that decision and let's move on to other issues. thank you, mr. president. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida is

recognized. mr. nelson: mr. president, i am very happy to announce to the senate that today nasa announced its new, big rocket design with the president stepping forth to indicate that the pleas request the funding for -- the president will request the funding for the design and building of this rocket. and i wanted to take the opportunity to share with the senate what this rocket is going to be. to set the stage, let me say that you'll recall we have the international space station up in orbit now. there are six astronauts on board, a combination -- it is an international crew prvment and the space station itself --

people don't realize how big it is. if you think about sitting in a football stadium on the 50-yard line and looking from one end zone to the other, that's how big the space station is. 120 yards long. 5*7bgdz the space shuttle has been the vehicle that we have used now for 30 year, the last ten of which it has been used to build the international space station. the russians taking up some components but the major components, the heavy componen components, beingtain in the cargo bay of the -- being taken up in the cargo bay of the space shuttle and is now the station, six astronauts doing research. in the zero gravity of orchlt the future rockets going to and

from the space station, a space taxi, if you will, are a competition among commercial rocket companies of which we think that competition will bring down significantly the cost of those rockets to take cargo and crew. and at the end of this year, one version of those rockets will in fact launch, rendezvous and dock with the space station and deliver cargo. now, to make those human rated, with all the redundancies and the escape systems to save human life is going to take another few years, and of course that's the disappointment for so many of us that the new rocket ready

to go to and from the space station, like the space shuttle used to, is not ready for humans, even though we're launching cargo. and, thus, in the interim we have to rely on the russians with their soyuz spacecraft, weave which we've relied on them before because, you know, when the space shuttle columbia was destroyed on reentry back in 2003, for well over two years we were down, not flying the space shuttle. until we could make sure that it was fixed. and we relied on the -- the russian soyuz to get to and from the space station. that's -- that's going to low-earth orbit, but nasa, with its human space program, has mother mission.

now, the nonmanned space program, let me tell you, we just launched to jupiter, we just launched a mission to the moon. next month, we're going to launch a mission on earth observations, and before thanksgiving, we are launching a volkswagen-sized rover to mars with six wheels that is powered by a plutonium source so it doesn't have to go to sleep in the martian night, and this thing will rove all over. it has a pole that will stick up with a laser in it that can zap rocks so we can analyze their chemical content. it's got a big scooper that we can also get additional samples, and it's got two eyes that will pop up as it roams around so we

can see real time the surface of mars. so we have got a vigorous space program, but we still have to do what nasa is supposed to do, and that is leave the orbit of the earth and venture out into the heavens with humans. and that's what was announced today. announced by senator hutchison and myself with the nasa administrator, general charlie bolden, making the former announcement. the president has signed off on the specifics. i'm going to explain this rocket, but before i do, let me say that a lot of critics, oh, it's going to cost too much. you remember last year, we passed the nasa bill unanimously in the senate and passed it down

in the house with a three quarters vote. overwhelming. and it set parameters on the funding for this new rocket. all of nasa's figures have come in underneath those levels that we set in the nasa authorization bill. and that is what the office of management and budget and the white house has scrubbed all of the numbers to make sure they were realistic, and that's what has been announced today. and here it is, this is the rocket. now, just to give you an idea of the scale of this monster, the space shuttle in the stack with the external tank and the two solids on either side, the tallest point of that stack is the top of the external tank. from here, that would come up to

right there. that gives you an idea of how much larger this rocket is. this rocket will launch more payload than any rocket in american -- in the american space program, and probably the russian/soviet space program. certainly now, but back in the old soviet days, i don't think the soviets had one that was anywhere this big. now, what it does is it has a core. this is a core big liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen fuel tank, and it's taking the space shuttle engine so we can keep the cost down. a lot of this has already been developed. taking the space shuttle engines and putting five in the tail of this first stage. first stage liquid hide general,

liquid oxygen. but it's boosted on either side by those solid rocket boosters. in this case, a new one under the space shuttle, it was four seconds. this has five segments so it's elongated. it gives more thrust. these on future versions will be competed as to whether it's going to be solid rockets, which, by the way, the consistency of that pencil eraser is what the solid rocket material looks like. or whether those in the competition will be liquid boosters. all right. that's the core, and that comes up all the way to here. then you have the second stage.

now, we have second-stage engines that we have been using in the past called the j-2. they are now updating with a new, more powerful version called the j-2-x. so we have a lot of history on these engines. that's what's going to be the second stage, and that then takes the housing for a lot of the electronics and then the capsule. the tower at the top is an escape tower so that you could actually have an explosion right here on the pad, and the crew could survive because they would ee g.a.o. in the full capsule, be thrust away from the explosion and then the parachutes deploy and the crew

is saved. likewise, you can save the crew on this rocket all the way to orbit so that if you had a problem, you could still save the human life of the four to seven astronauts that are going to be in this crew capsule, you could save their lives. that was one of the mandates after we lost columbia in the re-entry over texas. the investigation board said build a safer rocket, and certainly one that's more economical. so, mr. president, this is now on a schedule that it ought to be ready for its first test, this version. now, this is the smaller version. this thing can evolve. this is about 70-77 tons. this thing can evolve to 150 tons, and then you're

talking about a big monster. and on this version, they will test it on a schedule for 2017. they will have several other tests and they are on a schedule to put crew into this rocket 2021, and then they are on a schedule to go rendezvous, land on an asteroid. the first time that's ever been done. in a way of preparing us then to go to mars. so that is what nasa has announced today. i want to give great credit, great, great credit to senator hutchison. she has been the ranking member and alternately chairman of the space subcommittee of the commerce committee. senator hutchison of texas is now the ranking member of the full commerce committee, and she has been a princess in helping

guide this through, first of all, the nasa authorization bill and the funding, and tomorrow she and senator mikulski, the head of the c.j.s. appropriations subcommittee, will be taking up nasa's budget as they get ready to come to the floor with nasa's budget. this rocket will now allow us to get out of low earth orbit, assemble components, heavy components that ultimately will take us out into the heavens, exploring in ways that we never have even started to design. remember, 40 years ago, we went to the moon. that was quite an accomplishment, but the moon is about 250,000 miles from earth.

now, with rockets like these, we are going to go far, far out into the heavens, to explore the origins of the universe, to explore things that sometimes we have never even dreamed of, as we fulfill our destiny as a peoples who are explorers and adventurers by nature. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

recognized. mrs. hagan: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hagan: mr. president, i rise today to join my colleagues in imploring congress to provide needed assistance to our families, our communities, and our businesses suffering from the rash of natural disasters that have hit our country hard this year. while many of us who represent states on the east coast planned to spend our final week of our august work period traveling our state, touring factories and stopping by schools or visiting military bases, mother nature had other plans. we still traveled to our states but we saw a very different scene. whole streets and towns flooded, homes and businesses washed away prosecute their foundations -- away from their foundations, destroyed crop fields and constituents worried about the loss of their homes and mourning their loved ones. over two weeks ago hurricane irene barreled down our eastern

seaboard and early estimates suggest it could be one of the top-ten costliest disasters in u.s. history. i'm here to tell the story of north carolina. in the early morning of august 27, irene first touched down over eastern north carolina's outer banks. even before it made landfall, the storm brought on several tornadoes along the coast that swept away entire homes. this is a photo of what's left of three homes hit by tornadoes in terrell county. and i was there, and it was truly, truly devastating. one elderly man who had one of these homes was there the next day with a rake, forlorn look in his eyes and said "the only thing i own now are the clothes my back." by the time irene finally moved beyond the state of north carolina, six north carolinians had been killed, storm surges of

six to nine feet high flooded many towns, more than 500,000 residents were without power and countless homes, businesses and schools had been destroyed or severely damaged. fortunately our state had prepared diligently for days leading up to the storm, boarding up houses and businesses and declaring mandatory evacuations for tourists and residents in our most at-risk towns. a lot of pundits woke up after irene hit and started saying, hey, it wasn't that bad. well, i want to invite those individuals to come to eastern north carolina and see what i saw in the wake of hurricane irene. i saw small business owners in downtown manio emptying stores they have run for decades, moving their furniture to the curb, moving out carpet, totally destroyed and wondering -- these business owners wondering if it was even worth reopening their

stores. there was a bookstore and a resident in the community came up to me and he said, senator hagan, i've raised my children by sitting on this man's knees having books read to him day in and day out. we need this bookstore back in manio. i want to be sure it gets there. i saw crops beaten by wind and rain for 15 hours, and it looked like they had gone through the spin cycle of a washing machine. i saw flooding in the fields so severe that agricultural secretary and former iowa governor tom vilsack said it's the worst agricultural flooding that he recalls seeing. and i saw families clearing and burning debris, pumping flood water, tossing aside their soaked possessions beyond saving. and i also stood along highway 12, eerily quiet, a highway that's usually busy with traffic, totally still at the

point where irene left a gaping hole, blocking off any vehicle travel to and from hatteras island and the towns of rondanthi and waves. you can see the highway here. it breached at three separate points along highway 12. the only way to get there now is by ferry and according to local reports the line for was 15 miles mr. president, that's the picture in north carolina. it's not the only picture. while there were scenes of destruction and loss, i also saw tremendous acts of determination and kindness. if winds and rains may have swept away our possessions, this also stirred up the best parts of north carolina's spirit. our intrinsic devotion to community and to assisting those in need produced countless

heroes across our state the past two weeks. everywhere i went, i saw emergency workers, volunteer organizations and members of the community reaching out to their neighbors in need. in craven and terrell counties the american red cross and the north carolina baptist men and women provided hot meals. the north carolina baptist men and women were there distributing 5,000 meals one afternoon when i was with them. also helping shelter and debris removal for those affected by the hurricane. the north carolina national guard activated 400 members, including a member of my own staff who serves in the guard, to provide emergency water, food and supplies to some of the hardest-hit areas. emergency workers throughout the state continue to help families, businesses and entire communities recover and rebuild. mr. president, while the people of the great state of north carolina are committed to getting themselves and their

neighbors back on their own feet, we've got to do the same here in congress. for the north carolina families, farmers, fishermen, educators, seniors and small businesses struggling to recover, government assistance cannot come fast enough. and it must not leave too soon. here's my bottom line: congress must fully fund irene recovery efforts now, but we must also fund the emergency funding needs in tornado-devastated joplin, missouri, and alabama and the flooded communities of the midwest also, and in the wildfire disaster currently in texas. without a doubt, this year our country has been ravaged by an unprecedented series of natural disasters. since january 1, the president has issued disaster declarations in 48 states and the hurricane season is far from being over. we are aware of this trend all

too well in north carolina. just about four months before irene hit, 28 tornadoes touched down across central and southern north carolina, the most severe weather to hit our state since 1984. more than 20 north carolinians were killed, 6,200 homes damaged and about 440 homes were completely destroyed. 21 -- 21 businesses, including the largest employer in the town of sanford, were demolished, with another 92 significantly damaged, leaving at least 2,000 north carolinians in that one area out of work. and shaw university located in downtown raleigh was forced to close for the remainder of the semester due to the immense damage to its campus. mr. president, we will never be able to prejudiciary committee the whims of mother nature, but we are able to prepare and prepare we must because right now fema's disaster relief fund

is running dangerously low. even before hurricane irene eye riefd, we were using using $400 million a month on disaster relief efforts. today the fund is down to to $377 million. not enough for a week of spending before hurricane irene hit. and we still have three weeks to go in this fiscal year. if we don't act now to fix this shortfall, millions of americans will be left behind. already, fema is shifting funds away from virtually -- from vitally needed reconstruction projects in previously hard-hit areas to what they call the immediate needs assistance. well, i don't believe any one of us wants to be in the position of telling one of our constituents, one of our small business owners, one of our school principals that we can't help because they were not considered an immediate need. american victims of natural disasters should not be left at the mercy of a rob peter to pay

paul system. that is not who we are as americans. we have a choice right now, and, mr. president, in my mind and in the minds of all of north carolinians affected by the storms of irene and the tornadoes that took place in april, the choice is clear -- congress must make these fema supplemental funds available. the budget control act that we passed in early august established strict spending caps to get our fiscal house in order while also allowing for a limited amount of funds to be made available in case disaster struck. well, disaster struck and now is the time to make those funds available. meeting these needs is not just a necessity for the people of my state and many others, but it's also wholly consistent with the fiscal discipline that we agreed on and voted on in august. but, mr. president, vietnam funding is not enough. our farmers in north carolina

and across the eastern coast were devastated by irene, and they are in desperate need of assistance. north carolina's an structural state. we generate about $78 billion a year in economic activity, and it employs close to 1/5 of the workers in north carolina. mr. president, our agricultural industry, particularly our cotton and tobacco farmers, are in trouble. at the end of the day, when all of the damage assessments are completed, our farmers could be out more than $400 million from hurricane irene, and these crops were just getting ready to be harvested. our farmers and our state absolutely cannot afford a blow like this one. we in congress need to work together so that assistance from the u.s. department of agriculture can be expedited and delivered in a timelier manner, and we need to act soon. mr. president, i want to end with a story from my state that i believe is particularly

relevant at this time when communities across the country are in the process of recovery. back in april, one of the most recognizable scenes from the post-tornado coverage was of a lowe's store in sanford, north carolina. unlike with irene, there were few warnings of the tornado's arrival, but when mike hollowell, the store manager, saw the storm approaching the store, and it was very fast, he calmly moved every customer to the back corner where he knew, because he had been trained, where they would be the safest. and i saw that lowe's the very next day. this is what that store looked like. it was completely demolished, but every single person in the store when the storms hit was alive. mike hollowell is a hero. to those people in the lowe's store, but to people all over north carolina. and, mr. president, last week, not even five months after this

devastation, that same lowe's reopened, and it reopened with 2,000 more square feet than it had before. it just shows that north carolinians and people across the country are committed to a recovery that will leave our communities better than ever. the people of this great country are stronger than any storm. they will rebuild and recover, but that process may take many months, and it may take many years. as their representatives, we have a responsibility to provide a reliable, comprehensive program of relief for that duration. to do any less is a dereliction of duty. i call on all of my colleagues to pass this fema supplemental bill as soon as possible. thank you, mr. president, and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, in recent days, the president has repeatedly told congress to pass his stimulus package immediately. this began during his joint address to congress last week when he said at one point i am

sending this congress a plan that you should pass right away. you should pass this jobs plan right away, pass this jobs bill, pass this jobs bill, close quote. immediately following the president's joint address to the congress, press secretary jay carney declared -- quote -- "the president will submit a bill early next week, the american jobs act, which will specify how he proposes paying for the american jobs act." so as ranking republican on the budget committee and wrestling with these difficult issues -- i know senator cardin is a member of the committee -- we tried to figure out what this means and how much money this spending will be, but the bill that was transmitted to congress monday afternoon does not contain any fiscal tables.

costs for any of its provisions, actually. how those provisions will be paid for and when the pay-for will occur, or even an overall price tag for the bill. so how can the president call on congress to -- quote -- "pass this bill immediately when no one even knows how much it will cost, where the money is coming from? i sent a letter to the president's director of the office of management and budget, jack lew, asking that this information be provided to the congress at once, but so far we've had no response. part of the reason we need this information is that the total cost of the president's bill may be much higher than advertised. that's been the pattern around here. no one should be surprised. when the president said his plan would be paid for, he did not specify if he meant the total

cost to include increased interest resulting from the borrowed money to be spent immediately or just the cost of the jobs provision alone, actually how much goes out the door. depending on when the money is spent out and when it is paid back, assuming it is ever paid back, interest costs resulting from just this bill's borrowing could top $100 billion. in other words, the interest on the money over the ten-year window, the ten-year budget we're talking about, you spend $450 billion now, we pay interest on that money. it's borrowed money. people loan us the money, we pay interest. interest rates are low know. c.b.o. projects them to go up, our congressional budget office. certainly they will. they're extraordinarily low today. but at any rate, you can see easily the interest on this money over ten years reaching

$100 billion. now, the problem with looking at it as a ten-year matter is that the debt's not going to be paid off probably in ten years. most of the programs that we, debts we run up will be part of our deficit. if we're going to raise taxes to fund a new program, maybe we ought to raise taxes to pay off the debt we've got instead of spending it on a new program. the debt that we have distributes american wealth to people who hold our debt all over the world. so in my letter to o.m.b., i request tables showing a year-by-year tables for this bill's budgetary impact, including projected changes to the deficit for each of the next

ten years. in other words, how it will play out. we spend $450 billion in one, two, three years, how much does that run the debt up? when does the repayment begin? and how will it be paid, and at what rate? and if the president wants to advocate for a sharp near-term increase in the deficit in exchange for the possibility of an undefined economic future for the possibility of a stimulus, he ought to make that argument clearly to the american people. i believe the president also needs to be honest in admitting that the bill's short-term costs would wipe out, obliterate $7 billion in savings next year, resulting from the debt limit deal. in other words, we went through

this long, painful exercise that resulted in an agreement on the 11th hour and the 59th minute to save $900 billion and then hopefully form a committee that would save another $1.1 billion -- excuse me trillion dollars -- a fraction of this $2.1 billion in savings. of the $13 trillion, congressional budget office tells us will be added to the debt in the next ten years. so it was saved, a little over $2 trillion over ten years, and it would -- but at the same time we're running over $10 trillion in debt. so it's not a big enough step. it's a step.

here's progress. i certainly respect that, but it wasn't much. to show you how small it is, next year we are projected, under that agreement that congress ratified to reduce spending $7 billion. that's all. that's all that would be reduceed from this year to next year in actual spending levels. so i ask my colleagues: don't we need to be careful? after all the effort we took to achieve that much savings, shouldn't we think very, very carefully about a new stimulus plan that would spend $450 billion, obliterating that savings? i think we should. i think we should. but at any rate, we do need to know precisely how much it's going to cost and precisely how

the money would be spent. so let's flashback to february. the office of management and budget director jack lew said this -- quote -- this was when the president submitted his budget for the next ten years. it was brought up here on the floor of the senate. in fact, i brought it up, and it was voted down 97-0. but this is what mr. lew said about that budget -- quote -- "our budget will get us over the next several years to the point where we can look the american people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore. we're spending money we have each year. and then we can work on bringing down the national debt. " now, mr. president, we all know there's a certain amount of political license that people

get to utilize around the political world. exaggeration sometimes is forgiven. but let me tell you, this is the office of management and budget talking about the president's budget that he had just submitted to congress. he said it will get us to the point over the next several years to where we can look the american people in the eye and say that we're not adding to the debt any more. we're spending money that we have each year. and then we can work on bringing down our national debt. close quote. what is the truth? congressional budget office scored this budgetary plan. and this is what they concluded, that over a ten-year period there would be huge deficits every single year.

and in about year six or seven the lowest deficit would occur. $750 billion would be the lowest annual deficit that would occur. and by the tenth year it would be back up to $1 trillion. president bush's largest deficit he ever had was $450 billion. he was criticized for that. so we're going to have the lowest -- and he says this is going to pay down the debt and wouldn't be adding more to the debt if we passed his budget when his budget spent more, taxed more and ran up more debt, the most irresponsible budget, i believe, ever submitted to to te congress of the united states. at a time of national crisis, when all experts are telling us the greatest threat to our national security is our debt. so forgive me if i want to see the fine print on this legislation. the administration will tell you

that, and the president said very similar things. the president himself said very similar things. we would not be adding more to the debt. so, we may have in congress passed -- raised the legal debt limit. i did not vote for that particular bill. but we have breached, i'm afraid, our economic debt limit. america's $14.5 trillion gross debt is now 100% of our g.d.p., our economy. experts tell us we have already crossed a dangerous threshold. our debt is pulling down growth and putting a damper on job creation right now. so we have to ask ourselves, mr. president, can we continue to borrow, running up even more debt, in the hope that we can

spend it today in a sugar-high type stimulus create jobs in the short run. the congressional budget office scored the first stimulus package two years ago. it's come nowhere near achieving what was promised for it. and they said, okay, if you spend $825 billion now, you'll get some short-term economic benefit. but scored over a decade, you'd have an economic decline. the net growth of the united states would be less over ten years than if you didn't pass a stimulus package at all. and when you get up to 100% of g.d.p., i submit it's even more dangerous to keep running up debt. so this is a dilemma. we're in a fix. the economy is not growing the way we'd like it to grow. experts were projecting, c.b.o.

was projecting in january -- in january of this year they were projecting that economic growth for the first six months would be about 2.9%. we were hoping that would be true. but what happened? the first quarter of this fiscal year .4%. not 2%. not 2.9%. and the second quarter was extremely low also. we've averaged about 1% growth the first half of this year. so, we want to do something to help this economy grow. i submit we should do everything we can that would help our economy grow now, that does not run up the debt. what are some of those things? producing more energy at home. creating jobs here.

pumping more energy supply which could bring down the cost of energy. so if you bring down the cost of energy, create jobs, create tax revenue, create growth. that way. we should eliminate every regulation that's not beneficial to this economy. and there are a lot of them. some regulations are good. many of them just add costs to the entire economy for little or no benefit. and we need to have the kind of tax reform of a permanent nature that creates confidence in our economy, a kind of tax reform that advances economic growth rather than just increasing taxes to give washington more money. so those are my suggestions about how to deal with this. first and foremost, we're going to look at this proposal. we certainly are worried about the status of the economy today. we are deeply disappointed in

the job numbers that continue to disappoint. and hopefully, we'll find the key to changing that. but fundamentally, the economy will come back and jobs will come back when growth occurs. and growth will occur not in the public sector but in the private sector, and we need to ask ourselves what it is we can do to create a better climate for growth and job creation. we need to be rigorous in analyzing the president's proposal, to look at the details of it, how much it's going to cost and how they plan to pay it back. i think at a very minimum, we're entitled to that. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: we see the world differently but we acknowledge

we're in an economic situation where action is the only alternative. doing nothing is unacceptable. when president obama came to speak to us in a joint session of congress last week, that's what he told us. he basically said let's roll up our sleeves, work together, both political parties in congress for a change, and do something about this economy. 14 million americans out of work s. the report now from the joint committee committee and others about the highest level of poverty in decades, the problems that working families are having, week to week, month to month and year to year, falling behind despite all their hard work. their wages aren't rising to keep up with the cost of living. many are surviving paycheck to paycheck. a survey taken recently across america asking working families the following question: could you come up with $2,000 in 30 days if you had to, either out of savings or borrow it? 53% of working families said yes and 47% said no.

that's how close to the edge almost half of working families are living. a $2,000 medical bill in an emergency room is almost nothing these days. it's for a minor injury. and these families could not come up with it. that's what they're facing it. and that's why the president said let us focus on doing things that will help these families and equally, if not more important, help small businesses create jobs. there's there is no argument here about creating an army of government jobs. that's not even on the table. the president's not proposing that. here's what he said. let's give a tax cut, a payroll tax cut to working individuals so they have more take-home pay. i took a look at what it would mean in the state of illinois. it would mean for the average income, which is $53,000 a year, that family would get $1,400 in tax cuts.

$120 a month. i think it's worth something to working families to have that much more in their pocket, to meet the needs of their family and perhaps make some critical purchases for their children, for their future, whatever it might be. that is a tax cut the president has proposed. he also proposes a tax cut for small businesses if they will hire unemployed people. a tax credit of up to $4,000 to hire these folks. take them off the unemployed rolls and put them to work. i went to several job centers, mr. president, during the august recess, one in mchenry, illinois, one in elgin, illinois, and i spent the better part of the day sitting with unemployed people, talking to them. you ought to go there. if you think the unemployed of america, the 14 million that we hear the statistics on are living the life of luxury on their unemployment checks, they're not. most of them are struggling to survive, and many of them desperately come each day to a

job center to brush up their resume, to find out the latest people asking for new workers and put in new applications day after day after day, and many of them discouraged after submitting hundreds of applications with no response. some go back to school. i met a couple that really made the right life choice, going back to take coarses at community colleges where they could afford it or job training centers where there would be no charge to them, pick up a new skill in an area where you can get a job, that is the reality. and the president is trying to create tax incentives for small businesses to hire those people. now, usually, the republicans who come to the floor are applauding tax cuts. my experience is they are for tax cuts in times good and bad, but this time they are against these tax cuts. well, what's the difference between these tax cuts and the ones that the republicans historically support? there are two differences.

the president's tax cuts are focused on middle-income families, not the wealthiest, and they are the president's tax cuts. those are the two differences. i hope that some on the republican side will reflect on the fact, as the president said, the american people are not going to reward us for our campaign rhetoric if this economy doesn't turn around. they want us to work together to solve the problems facing our economy. they want tax cuts for working families. they want small businesses to have an incentive to hire people. they want us to focus on creating good-paying jobs right here at home. what kind of jobs? building america. as the president said, if we're going to succeed in this world, we need to outeducate our competitors, outinnovate our competitors and outbuild them. i went to china over easter. it is incredible what's happening in that country. they are building in every direction.

building cranes and construction activity everywhere. they are building the infrastructure in china to become the number-one economic power in the world in the 21st century. and what are we doing? we're hearing speech after speech saying because of the deficit, we cannot invest in america, we cannot invest in education, some say. we can't invest in research, they argue. we can't invest on building america. i think they're wrong. the deficit is a serious challenge, but even the bowles-simpson commission which i served on and voted for said when you get serious about cutting spending, do it when this recession is behind you. they know we know you can't balance the budget with 14 million americans out of work. and let me say a word about the safety net in america. i made a visit in champaign, illinois, to a food distributing operation. they distribute food to pantries and soup kitchens all around

central illinois. unfortunately, their business has never been better. more and more families are showing up in these places for a helping hand. and i went in there to hear how they're doing. they are getting a lot of help from the private sector. donate food that's near expiration, for example, and a lot of contributions from churches and charitable individuals. it's really heart warming to see it. as i went to see this place, there was a young woman there. she was an attractive, well-dressed woman. i assumed hee worked for this food depository. then she said to me she had a job at a local school district as a teacher's aide. i was a little puzzled as to whether she was on the board of directors or what her connection was. she came there to tell me that as a single mom with two little kids, even with a job in the school district, which she was happy to have, she still needed food stamps to put food on the table every day for her kids.

i don't think americans, those of us lucky enough to never have to worry about the next meal, know what families are going through. working families, struggling with low income, trying to keep their kids well fed and to do what every parent wants to do. more and more, they are going to soup kitchens very quietly because that's a meal they don't have to pay for. they're going to the pantries to pick up the groceries. i've seen them in one of the nicest and most prosperous counties in my state, dupage county, i went to the pantries there and saw people coming through the door. you wouldn't be able to pick them out, but they are working families that need a helping hand. that's the reality and that's why the safety net is so important. i'm troubled that so many people today are on food stamps. i'm not troubled because they are on food stamps. i'm troubled because they have to be on food stamps. i hear some of the critics come to the floor and argue, you know, there are just too darned

many people on food stamps, there's something wrong here. well, what's wrong is not food stamps. what's wrong is hunger and low income and working families struggling to get by patch to paycheck. that's what's wrong. and the numbers of americans now qualified for this food stamp assistance is even going up among those who are employed, like the lady i met in champaign, illinois. that's a reality. something else is happening, too. as more and more people lose their jobs, they lose their health insurance. when i sit down with the unemployed, that's one of the first items that comes up, because once you have lost that health insurance premium that your employer helps you pay, most folks can't afford it. it's just way beyond them. so they're out there without insurance, they're vulnerable. some of them have sick kids, chronically ill children, and they worry about it. they are going to the free

clinics. we're seeing more and more working families showing up at free clinics across america. that's the reality of this economy, too. so when we talk about cutting spending on medicaid, keep in mind who receives medicaid payments in america. in my state of illinois, 36% of the children, 36% of illinois children are covered by medicaid insurance. when it comes to births in the state of illinois, 52% of all births in illinois are paid for by medicaid, but the biggest single expense in medicaid, neither one of those. 20% of the medicaid recipients in my state account for 60% of the costs of the program, the elderly, parents, grandparents, great grandparents, in nursing homes and convalescence centers, on medicare and broke. stay in there because medicaid steps in and helps them keep things together. they have at least some care and

some attention in the late years of their life. when we talk about cutting spending in medicaid, we are talking about hurting the most vulnerable people in america. children, like the kids of that single mom that i met, those who need prenatal care so their babies will be healthy, and of course the elderly who are stuck in that position. the same thing is true with medicare. i understand medicare costs are going up dramatically. i also understand the number of people under social security and medicare is going to rise as baby boomers reach that age, but we have to take care that at the end of the day, we protect the basic premiums and benefits that are presently available under medicare. for a lot of americans and a lot of seniors, it's their only health insurance. it's really what keeps them independent and strong. and we can't compromise that basic protection by privatizing medicare or raising the cost of medicare beyond the reach of senior citizens. finally, when it comes to social

security, let me just say that this is a program which means a lot. for 70% of social security recipients, it's a majority of their retirement. for 25% of social security recipients, it's all they get. that's it. so guarding social security and protecting its future is important for our parents and grandparents. it's important for our country and for its future as well. the president came forward and he said this is my jobs bill, this is what i think will help move america forward, put more spending power in the hands of working families, create incentives for small businesses to hire people, focus on putting firefighters, cops and teachers back to work. that's a priority in our country for sure, and investing in building in america. one of the few lines the president had that got bipartisan standing ovation -- there weren't many last thursday -- was when he said it's an embarrassment that 10%

of our returning veterans are unemployed. let's put our veterans back to work. that's part of the president's plan. now, when i listened to the senator from alabama, he doesn't like the way the president pays for the plan, but he does pay for it. it doesn't add to our deficit. how does he pay for it? one thing he does is to dramatically reduce the federal subsidy to oil and gas companies. filled up your tank lately? take a look at what they are charging at the pump. illinois and most places, it's over four bucks. and that is translating into the highest reported profits in the history of american business. oil companies have never, ever had it so good. and president obama has said -- and i agree with him -- if there was ever a moment in time when the federal subsidies to these oil companies should come to an end, this is it, and the money

saved should go to small businesses and families across america in this difficult economy. the president also believes, and i agree with him, the wealthiest among us, those who are most comfortable should be asked to share in the sacrifice. now, there are some on the other side who would not accept one penny more in taxes on the wealthiest people in america. i don't get it. as i travel around illinois, a lot of families are sacrificing in this tough economy. they know they have to. it's the only way they are going to make it. and they know that some of the government programs which have been around in the past aren't going to be there in the future or maybe not as generous. if working families and middle-class families across america accept that reality, why can't the wealthiest families in america accept it, too? honestly, i think they can. by and large, the people i know who are blessed with a lot of wealth and a pretty comfortable life have said to me, senator, i

don't need all this. i don't need all that social security payment. can i get by without it. i don't mind paying a little more in taxes. those are the people i run into. but you hear from the other side that is totally unacceptable. some of them have said the president's plan has fallen flat on its face because it taxes the wealthy in america. i think the wealthy should pay their fair share. i think the president's plan is an honest, good plan that moves us forward. so for those who are critical of it, give me your alternative. i wrote down here what the senator from alabama suggested. he wants more energy produced here at home. i'm for that. i think we ought to go to places where it's environmentally responsible and produce more energy here in the united states, but i will say two things to keep in mind. number one, all of the known oil reach onshore and offshore and gas reserves in the united states of america that we could equals 3% of the known oil and gas reserves in the world. 3%. each year, the united states of america consumes 25% of oil and gas consumed in the world.

we cannot drill our way into energy independence. we can expand the base, do it in an environmentally responsible way, perhaps find better sources, newer sources for things like natural gas, but this is not the answer to our prayers. and secondly, moving toward energy efficiency is not only good for the environment, it's good for the bottom line for a family and for a business. promoting efficiency. my wife and i take a little pride in the fact that we own a car, a ford fusion, hybrid, and we were kind of patting ourselves on the back a little bit as we came back from vacation in michigan and we were getting 36 miles a gallon. i felt pretty good about it. i was bragging to my friends about it. now i'm bragging on the senate floor. it can be done. we can create more fuel-efficient vehicles. we didn't compromise anything, and we bought america. i think that's what we need to encourage in this country.

cars and creating jobs in this country, reducing the need for energy from being imported from overseas and reducing the pollution that unfortunately hinders our environment and our health. i think that's a good thing. so on the senator's first point, sure, more energy at home but put it in perspective. that isn't the answer to america's economic needs. the second point he says is eliminate certain regulations. that that could be true. there are regulations now that don't make any sefnlts get rid of them. i'm not sure this is a big ball and chain being dragged around by our economy, but there's no sense in wasting time or money on regulations that really don't serve a good public purpose mp the final point he said, i couldn't agree more -- tax reform. we lose $1.2 trillion a year to the tax code. credits and deductions and exclusions and special favors written in the tax code for businesses and individuals. that's got to come to an end p. that's a good way to raise

revenue and maybe even reduce marginal tax rates in the process. that's what bowles-simpson said. even my friend from alabama who spoke earlier, even he and i can find some common ground. i hope he'll agree with me and the president. doing nothing is unacceptable. the president has said no more games, no more delay, no more politics. do something. that's the message i got in august as i returned to illinois. it is a message i hope my colleagues share as well. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor, like i do on a weekly basis, to talk about the health care law. i do that as a physician, someone who has practiced medicine for a quarter of a century take care of wyoming families. i come because i have great concerns about this health care law. you know, history proves that landmark pieces of legislation,

written in congress, often contain drafting errors at one stage or another during the bill's development. and this is one of the main reasons that most landmark bills are written and negotiated in an open and a transparent manner. writing and negotiating bills is, in a way, helps members of congress minimize misstarks helps uncover any unintentional consequences and helps fix problems. this is done through rigorous committee and floor committee as well as house-senate conference committees as the bills go through the process. most importantly, doing something in an open and transparent manner gives the american people, the folks at home, an opportunity to read a bill, to study it, to think about it, to discuss it during town hall meetings with their members, and to ask questions and weigh in. well, unfortunately, mr. president, we all kne know t the largest health care law ever

enacted didn't undergo an open or transparent or bipartisan process. president obama promised the american people that they could watch the discussions and writing process on c-span. instead, the president and democratic leaders in both the house and senate sealed themselves behind closed doors. their strategy: pass sweeping health care legislation based on stealth and speed. use sound bites to sell america about expanding coverage, about cutting costs, about improving quality. and then offer very few details explaining exactly how the bill would impact individual americans nor what it would cost the country. well, while this entire strategy was being played out, the president and washington democrats were writing the legislation behind closed doors. why? well, to limit the time that the bills could be read and reviewed by the american public. some in washington thought that rushing a health care bill into

law before america could read it was the perfect way to avoid public debate and public questioning. many of us recall when former speaker of the house nancy pelosi infamously said that first you have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. well, the president passed his health care law, and the american people continue on a daily basis to find out what's in it. and they don't like it. and it's easy to understand why. as the american people have had a chance to read the details, they started requesting more questions. the numbers weren't adding up. health care costs were going up even though the president promised that health care costs would go down. there were costly mandates on small employers and that was going to discourage hiring. nancy pelosi said they'd higher 400,000 people immediately. they haven't been hired. she said 4 million new workers

ultimately. we haven't seen it yet. mandates that we've seen have come out of the health care law, do nothing to spur economic growth and help the 9.1% of individuals nationwide -- 14 million americans -- who are currentically unemployed, who are looking for work. then even more government orders forcing individuals to buy one-size-fits-all government-approved insurance or face a fine. well, the american people have now had 17 months to find out what is in the president's health care law, and one news report after another has been uncovering a laundry list of so-called glitches in the health care law. well, former speaker pelosi wanted the american people to find out what's in the law, and 17 amongsts later, the american people are finding out that the president and washington democrats didn't even write it correctly. on wednesday, september 7, of this year "investors' business daily" printed an article entitled "oops: no obama tax

credit via federal exchanges." the way obama care was written, individual whose qualify for a taxpayer-funded subdisoi buy government-approved health insurance in the new state exchanges may not get it. section 1311 of the health care law requires the states to set up state-run exchanges. this state-based exchange is a place where individuals can use their government subsidy to buy health insurance. now, if a state declines to set up their own exchange, then section 1321 mandates that the federal government set it up and run it for them. here's the catch: the health care law, as written, as signed by the president, splice utley says that the taxpayer-funded subsidies can only go to people who are enrolled in exchanges set up by the state. nowhere does the health care law mention that the subsidy can be given to people enrolled in the federal exchange.

so the american people are now finding out that their family might actually qualify for government help to buy health insurance but they're not going to receive the help. instead, individuals enrolled in the federally runned exchanges could be forced to buy health insurance that absolutely they cannot afford. not only might this law cause individuals to spend money that they don't have, the law may also offer tax-funded subsidies to people who don't actually need it. let me repeat that. the law may actually offer tax-funded subsidies to people who don't actually need it. at a time when our country can hardly afford to spend money we don't have, medicare's chief actuary, richard foster, exposed yet another glitch in the president's health care law. the law allows approximately 3 million middle-class early retirees to qualify for medicaid. well, medicaid is a safety net

program designed to help low-income americans. here's how this one works: the health care law defines how the federal government will set an individual's medicaid eligibility. the calculations are all based on income. here's the glitch: the health care law excludes a large part of an individual's social security income from that calculation. well, today federal low-income assistance programs are required to count social security benefits as part of an individual's income. thanks to the health care law, early retirees earning up to $58,840 a year could now be eligible for medicaid. here's what mr. foster said in an associated press article: he said. "i don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense." this is the chief actuary of medicare.

"i don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense." well, mr. president, i agree. that's why i've cosponsored legislation introduced by senator mike enzi closing this loophole. senator enzi's bill, s. 1376, changes the health care law's subsidy-eligibility calculation to include all nontaxable social security income. the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation estimate that if we enacted senator enzi's bill, we will save the federal government and the american people about $13 billion. the senate should immediately take up s. 1376 and pass it. this is $13 billion we can save right now today. let's show the american people that when we see our country spending money that it shouldn't, that we will take a stand collectively as a senate and stop it.

now, these examples -- these two examples inevitably beg the question, what next? clearly, the self-described -- quote -- "most transparent administration in history" -- close quote -- has a lot of explaining to do i just don't believe that my friends on the other side of the aisle, who wrote this very flawed health care law -- and they did it behind closed doors -- he just don't think that they know what they're doing what they wrote these provisions. how do i know that? well, if they understood how devastating their policies would be, they might have had second thoughts. how many more destructive ticking time bombs are there lurking in this law and in the regulations that still haven't been written about this health care law? that was signed a year and a half ago? we don't know.

we don't know because many of the provisions don't even go into effect until the year 12014 or later. -- until the year 2014 or later. as a physician whose practiced med sane long time, cared for patients all over the state of wyoming, has brought long-term health care to people all across the cowboy state, i intend to fight each and every day in the senate to make sure the american people will not have to find out what kind of additional ticking time bombs there are in the health care law. that's because i am more committed than ever to repeal the health care law and replace it with patient-centered care. replace it with health care reforms that help american families get the care they need and the doctor they want at a price they can afford. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the roll. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. then the senator from louisiana is recognized. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i know we've had several speeches in the last couple of hours on very important topics, the jobs bill, our efforts to stimulate the recovery, a response from our democratic leader to senator sessions, and the good senator who was just speaking talking about health care. but i've come to focus our attention, if i could, again this afternoon -- we spent most of yesterday talking about a matter that is absolutely right at hand, and that is disaster relief funding, and calling on this senate and the house of representatives to focus some

immediate and comprehensive thought and attention on this subject, which is affecting so many of our constituents. republicans, democrats, and independents, big cities, small towns, and rural areas, all over this country. in fact, this is the first year in our memory and in i think the recorded recent history that, mr. president, we've had a presidentially declared disaster in 48 of our 50 states. just a few days ago, we along the eastern seaboard and the gulf coast where i'm from, representing louisiana, suffered from the remnants of the original hit and remnants of tropical storm lee and hurricane irene and as some senators that joined me in a press conference earlier today, i think it was the senator from north carolina said it's actually been three

disasters. an economic disaster in terms of an economy that is weak and fragile and we're doing our best to lift it and to strengthen it, and then hurricane lee and -- or tropical storm lee and then hurricane irene. and it's been millions and millions of dollars of damage. unfortunately, we on the gulf coast and tragically are getting to be experts in this field because we as the senators and house members from the gulf coast have battled multiple disasters over this last decade. katrina and rita, which broke all records, surpassed any planning this government has ever done, had a fema that showed up not ready, not comprehensive enough in its view, our people have suffered but we've made a lot of changes since then and here we dawr with actually a better fema from all accounts, and i want to give a

lot of credit to this administration particularly and not just homeland security, but the cabinet of this president has been really extraordinary in their reasonableness when it comes to this subject. and i've seen the opposite, so i think i'm in a position to see the difference. it's a big difference in this obama administration in terms of the cabinet. they want to say yes to disaster victims. they don't want to say no. that's very important. they can't always say yes to everything, to rebuild every building, repave every street, elevate every home, but they're trying to say yes, and most importantly, the lawyers have been instructed to find a way forward. as owe points of order -- opposed to instructions from the last administration which was to find a way to say no. let me just give credit to where credit is due to the obama administration in their

willingness to be flexible, to be forward leaning, to have attorneys that are trying to be on the side of the taxpayer, on the side of the victims, and not shortchanging people in times of desperate need. having said that, the administration can't do it all on their own. they need congress as the constitution says to provide the funding so that the executive branch can do their job. now, the executive branch by all accounts, even republicans have come to the floor from states that have been hard hit and said it's a more muscular fema, it's a more dynamic fema, it's a more flexible fema and i want to thank senator lieberman and senator collins. they're the authorizers. yes, i've had a part of it, others have had but they've worked tirelessly after katrina and the disaster that happened on the gulf coast to where we were all shamed when we saw what didn't happen that should have. we fixed a lot of it.

and that's something to be happy about and proud about. when government does set its mind to improve things, we can. but we can't do anything without the funding. and right now, fema is empty. the pot of money is empty. projects, millions, hundreds of millions of dollars today, not just in my state but in california, in tennessee, in iowa, in texas, and in north dakota, and i could go on and on but for the record let me just say a couple. in tennessee, mitigation of private residences from the 2010 floods have been halted. now, for those that might not be familiar with the word "mitigation" which most people are, it means you could be elevating your house, you could be putting shutters or storm windows on your windows.

let's see, what else. you could be potentially strengthening the frame of your house if you're trying to mitigate against high winds from a tornado. there are rules that allow people to try to improve your home so the next time it happens not only are you not homeless but taxpayers aren't paying again for the same sort of incident. and the federal government under good policy requires a certain portion of all disaster funding to be specific. senator -- the president knows this from maryland, to go to mitigation. because taxpayers think when you're trying to rebuild from a flood or a storm or a tornado or a bridge collapse, don't just build the same old thing. try to mitigate so it doesn't happen again. that's smart so you're not double, triple spending taxpayer money. but in tennessee this family, let's say, is in the middle of elevating their home, let's say they've gotten it off the -- the ground by two feet, and the

contractors showed up on monday. they were sent home because this project has been stopped. so somewhere there are homes in tennessee, i'm not sure in what particular community, where private sector contractors, many small business owners and their employees showed up to work and were told go home, fema's out of money. we have to fix this this week before we leave and if not, at the latest by next week. now, in iowa repairs for an electric utility. i'm not sure who provides utilities in iowa. potentially it may be -- because in my state in rural areas the local rural co-ons. their project has been shut down. potentially people are still receiving electricity. i don't think people are sitting in the dark. i'm hoping not. but whatever they were planning to repair and fix in iowa has

been halted because we have run out of money. in texas, repairs to the university of texas medical facility has been stopped. in louisiana, roadway construction has been stopped. in fact, there was an article in our paper, "the times picayune" just this week that said $100 million for jefferson parish, $100 million, that's just one of my parishes, one of 64, the suburban parish that sits right outside of new orleans that was very hard hit by these storms, not as hard as orleans parish, received billions of dollars of damage, those projects have been put on hold while we help the victims in the northeast. that shouldn't be the case. we need to act quickly to refill the fema fund. in addition, i understand in north dakota and in other places there are problems.

now, it's not just the deth, the corps of engineers did not have enough money last year for emergencies. i slipped out of the chamber here just a few minutes ago to go actually meet with the mayor of grande isle who was here as he is quite often advocating on behalf of the only barrier island that's inhabited in the state of louisiana, and he brought up pictures, again, they're too small to see but i'm going to have them blown up for tomorrow but i have in my hand pictures of the lef eyes that were just -- levees that were ripped up and destroyed, again, from hurricane -- well, from the senator from lee. these were levees on the gulf that we just completed, but because the corps of engineers when they rebuild levees in their authorizing legislation, they are prohibited -- which

makes no sense whatsoever, is a complete waste of taxpayer money -- they're prohibited from betterment. they can build back what was there but they can't build it better or higher unless they are directed to do so. well, i'm about ready to direct them because i am tired on behalf of my people and the people of this country and the taxpayers from rebuilding levees ten times in a matter of five years. it's a waste of money, it is aggravating to the people whose homes are behind these levees and because we decent have a policy when you're building levees to be ordered to build them stronger, higher, except of course in the case of some levee systems in katrina that was specifically directed and it's being done. we're building around the city of new orleans a much stronger, much better system. you would think that would be being done all over the country and it's not. why? because we're short on funding,

short on political will, and short on imagination and creativity when it comes to building infrastructure in this country, and i for one am tired of it and so are the people that i represent. and i'm asking the other side of the aisle to step up and to provide funding, funding that is not offset in the middle of a disaster. we'll figure out how to pay for these later. these disaster funds later. but as i think senator leahy said so eloquently in our press conference today, do the republican -- some people in the republican party actually believe we want fire departments all over the united states when your house is on fire, they show up with the engine and then they debate in the middle of the street how they're going to pay for the extra overtime to put out your fire? i don't think so. even if the fire department is broke, even if the funding is

run out, you don't want to have a debate over how are you going to pay for overtime when the fire is burning. you put the fire out, you bring the people to safety, you put the family in shelter and then you go back to the city council meeting next week and you can debate for as long as you want how you're going to ultimately pay for it. we paid for world war ii, obviously. it was a long time ago. it's completely paid for. we paid for world war i, we're paying for afghanistan, we're paying for iraq which by the way, not one single solitary republican -- and not many democrats for that matter, but not one republican that i can recall stood up and asked or debated for five seconds how we were going to pay for the war in iraq and afghanistan. but when the people of vermont ?and front of their bridges collapsed, their homes collapsed, their schools collapse and say we need help, we need now a month-long debate on how we're going to pay for

it. we haven't done this since the 1800's. now, we will eventually pay for it. america has to pay for everything. we will pay for it. we don't have to have that debate now. what we do have to have a debate about is how do you repair levees and what's the best way to mitigate and what are the new technologies that can be used to make our communities stronger and smarter. how can we streamline the process, how can we eliminate the red tape, how can we get help to people faster? that's what we should be debating about. instead, i've got cantor and boehner making us argue about what offset. i have to go to maybe the president's state in maryland and say senator, what can you give up this year in your state or i have to go to michigan, what can you give up in michigan or i have to go to california, what can you all give up in california so we can pay for people that are under water in vermont, and north dakota. -- and north carolina. what kind of government is this? i don't want to be a part of

that and i'm not going to be. so we've got to fund these disasters now and the saddest thing about all this, mr. president, are the -- it's sad and it's also puzzling and it's per plecting and -- perplexing and aggravating because we already sort of made this deal a month ago when we negotiated that big, you know, agreement that we all came to about how the levels of funding would be for 2012. everybody remembers that before we left for august and had this big knockdown, dragout. well, in that agreement our leadership, republicans and democrats already agreed to to do something that i think is very smart and i want to show you what they agreed to. can we put that chart up on the expenditures. they agreed because it's a puzzlement, how do you fund in advance disasters, how do you

know how much to set aside, you know, it's a problem because every year is different. and i want to show you what our problem is. so people listening can give me their own suggestions about how to solve it. in 2003, we set aside in the whole budget of the united states, you can see this a little bit, $800 million for disasters. but we had $1.7 billion. so we were short $984 million and that went on our books. we funded it. the next year we said we had $1.7 billion in disasters so the next year we put $1.8 billion in the bill, we would cover it, last year was $1.7 billion but lo and behold we had had an additional $3 billion in disaster funding. so the next year we increased the money and lo and behold we

put $2 billion, and katrina hit and the levees broke and you know what the bill came in for, mr. president? $43 billion. we had budgeted $2 billion because all in the history of the past, that's all we really needed to cover disasters. it went from $2 billion to $43 billion. now, who would have had a crystal ball know that? did we sit and debate? well, some people tried to, until i said there was no way i was going to have to find the $43 billion offset before we could let the people of the gulf coast know that help was on the way. so we spent what was required to help rebuild the gulf coast. and then the next year, you can see. so these numbers are very erratic. they're unpredictable. so what our leadership did, looking back on their ten years and listening to the debate and the argument, they came up with a pretty good plan. this is their plan: they said, okay, we'll throw out

the high number, we'll throw out the low number, like in 2009 we didn't have any emergencies. can you imagine one year you have no declared emergencies and the next year you have a declared emergency in almost every state. that's how erratic this is. it's not like we're not trying to plan. it's impossible by the nature of what an emergency and disaster is to plan. you can plan for them, but you can't always predict exactly how many you're going to have and where they're going to be. of course, everyone understands that. so what our leaders did is they threw out the top one, threw out the bottom one and came up with an average. that average is about $11 billion, a very reasonable approach. so they put in our agreement that we made 30 days ago -- we said, okay, next year this is what the federal government can spend and in addition to that you can go up to the average. so you can spend an additional

$11 billion, which is really a very small amount of money compared to the whole federal budget. so you would think that we would not be having this debate. why? the need is very evident. the history would dictate that we don't have this debate over disasters. and the republican and democratic leadership has already provided a way over and above our 2012 numbers to pay for these disasters. so i ask, why are we having to fight for this? that is a very good question. i think it's because some people on the other side of the aisle think this is a good thing to fight about. they think that they have to go find a pay-for for everything we do, even when i've described you can't predict, even if you do plan responsibly, you never know, as in the case of katrina and rita and wilma.

and because our leadership already negotiated a way forward for us. but yet we have people now all over the country looking to the republican leadership, listening to representative cantor, listening to representative boehner, speaker boehner say, i'd like to help you, ladies and gentlemen, but we have to find an offset. i think people say, well, why didn't we hear that when they sent troops into afghanistan or iraq? why didn't we hear that when they're rebuilding iraq and afghanistan? the same people aren't standing up yelling and screaming, or didn't when we went in. and i think they have a good -- a good point. so i'm saying that i am proud of the senate for last night, with democrats mostly and, yes, about eight republicans that voted to move this debate forward. i thank particularly senator

blunt from missouri, who's been an outstanding leader on the appropriations committee for the need to act now, to act quickly, to fund the dirf, to fund the corps of engineers. missouri has had terrible storms and floods. they had the great flood of mississippi river, which was the highest in 50 years. it was so high along our capital city when i visited with our mayor a couple of months ago in baton riewdges, our capital stirks now our largest city, since 100,000 people have left new orleans to literally live on higher ground, although it's broken their hearts and divided up their families, they have moved to baton rouge, our capital stirks as we rebuild our levees and our flood control structures stronger in the southern part of our state, and people spend time walking on the lealevees, riding bikes. mechanical vehicles are not

allowed and you can't have 4-wheelers because that would be destructive. the levees are almost like linear parks. for the first time in history, the mayor had to declare everybody to stay off the levees because the water was so high and seeping through, we literally thought maybe even some of these great levee systems would breach. happily, they did not. but it was a really frightening situation for millions and millions. in 1 some parts north us, the levees did breach. it's frightening if you live behind or your business is behind one of those levees, as north dakota residents know all too well. but nonetheless, we should not be debating this. i'm hoping our bill will pass this week and get over to the house for a quick vote. if the house decides to send us a continuing resolution, please -- i want the house leadership

to hear clearly what i'm saying and i'm going to send them a message by letter in the next few minutes -- please do not think that you can nickle-and-dime recovery efforts, that you can fund it six weeks at a time or four weeks at a time. disaster recovery doesn't operate that way. our a mayors, our governors, the republican governor of nother, the republican governor of virginia, the mayors of patterson, who is with us today, and marriage penalties and down the east coast who are with their people every day, the mayor of joplin missouri has to be able to na to know that he cn a year out for two years out. how to rebuild an entire town is overwhelming even if you have the money and the plan. can you imagine if you sort of have a plan but you don't know if the federal government is going to provide your money or not? do you know the frustrating council meetings and school board meetings that'll be had

and they'll say, well, the republican party in washington can't figure out if we should get funding, but it's six weeks at a time. i am not going to allow that to happen. i am going too lay the line in the sand right now. you may get around hey on it, but it is going to take a huge effort to get around this desk on that subject. a huge effort. if i have to shut the senate down, i've done it before, i will do it again. because i can tell you, as much as my name is mary landrieu, you cannot rebuild communities with six-week plans. it took us a whole year -- it took twos years to put together the rural home program, mr. president. two years after we got the funding. and the reason we couldn't put it together before, even though mississippi had their money because president bush gave them

their money priet away but made the people of louisiana wait, the reasoning we couldn't do our plan is because congress wouldn't decide how much money to give us. no mayor, no governor, no matter how great they are, no matter how smart they are, no matter how many engineers they have, no matter how many rotary clubs are helping, no matter what the commerce, you know -- the comaim of commerce is doing, i'm telling yotelling you, it cannoe without a reliable source of funding so the planners can sit down and say something like this: we lost eight schools in this flood. they bring the community together. these are how these discussions go. we might not have money to build all eight, but we have money to build six. which six do you want to build and where do you want to build them? what materials do you want to use and which kids should go to which schools? i've been in these meetings. i am not going to allow the mayors and governors to call their people together and say,

we lost six schools and we don't know when the money is coming to build them, and we can't make any plans because the republican leadership has decided that every six weeks they're going to let us know how much money we're going to get. that is not going to happen. so i want speaker boehner to think about this and i want mitch mcconnell to think about this and i want the republican leadership. i will negotiate on the top number, i'll talk about maybe fema doesn't need quite this much, i'll talk about, well, maybe the corps of engineers doesn't really need that much, but i will not, under any circumstance, agree to a six-month or four-week -- not six-month, a six manufacture week or four-week -- a six-week or four-week continuing resolution. you may run the government of the united states that way. we've unfortunately gotten used to it. that's a very sad comen taker -a

very sad comen takers i might say. we operate on a six- week basis. but that might be the game we play with the government. but i am not going to allow that game to be played with people who have lost their homes, lost their businesses, and people that look up from the storm and say, oh, my gosh, what happened to me? and they they don't even know what's going to happen because we can't make a decision that lasts more than six months or a year. so the minimum -- the minimum will be six months. and i hope that we can find the will to do a whole year, because without that, you are going to shut down recovery operations at a time in this country where it is heartbreaking to think of small business owners who have lost their print shop or they've lost their dress store, they've lost their shoe store and they see everybody talking about creating jobs. they used to have three of them

last week selling their printing material or selling shoes or whatever. and they're trying to get their business back, and we can't decide whether, even though we have the money -- we have the money, and although we already budgeted for the money, 0 although we already made an agreement about how we would do this, we're going to still arg argue? i tell you, if this is on the tea party agenda, i'd suggest they take it off. and if it's somebody else's jeansdz, please speak up. i have not had one single republican senator come down and defend this position because it is indefensible. so i hope when the leadership is negotiating, which they're negotiating right now, they will hear me in a summary very quickly: fema is -- the fema pot is

empty. the corps of engineers is always running on fumes. levees are breaking and flooding is occurring in places that haven't flooded in 100 years. will we wake up and realize that we have to put more money in emergency funding and we have to be there when our people are hurting, like they are now, and we will eventually pay for this. we don't have to figure that out in the next 30 days. twoaf give them a green light, give them the billions of dollars they need to operate for a year. everything else is negotiatable. but it is not going to be negotiated. we're not going to rebuild 48 states or piece of 48 states four weeks at a time. that will not happen. so whatever amount of money we give, let it be for as long as we possibly can make it. let it be as -- you know, as robust as it possibly can be and give a green light to our republican governors, republican mayors, our independents, our democrats out there. just shell-shocked right now about the work before them.

and the people in neighborhoods that are still crying and in shock about what they have to do and making decisions, should we come back, should we not come back, what should our neighborhood do, what should our community do, maybe we should all move to higher ground? these decisions are being made right noi and the last thing they should be worried about is congress debating whether there's money there to turn that hose on. so, let's do our job the way we've done it for, you know, 150 years. let's continue to do t let our people know we're there for them, just like we try to be there for other people in the world that are caught in situations like this. we most certainly need to be here for our meme in america. i -- for our people in america. i thank the chair and yeempletd i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

slt mr. warner: the presiding officer: the senator from virginia.

mr. warner: i ask the proceedings of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: i come here today to the floor to talk about a sight of particularly historic significance in the commonwealth of virginia and an action that we in virginia are requesting the president to make but before i get to that subject, mr. president, i want to take a moment to echo what i know the pre-- the presiding officer has said and my colleague, the distinguished senator from louisiana, as many colleagues have come down to the floor over the last few days and expressed concern and talked about the series of natural disasters and calamities that our various states have experienced over the last few weeks and months. we've had the in effect the trifecta in the commonwealth of virginia in the last month where we had about a month ago an earthquake hit, something that

was a bit unprecedented in virginia, an earthquake that has shut down schools and louisa county an earthquake that still has caused damage here at the washington monument and at the national cathedral. but in central virginia in louisa county and mineral and culpeper and other places around virginia has caused enormous damage. we had hurricane irene, which, again, through central virginia and down into hampton roads, enormous damages from that storm. and then most recently we had tropical storm lee where i had the opportunity in a community not far from where some of our distinguished folks who work in the clerk's office, one of the parliamentarians live, i know they live in alexandria, not too far away, there is a neighborhood named huntington, virginia and this community i walked through they had been

flooded out three times in the last decade. 100-year flood plain yet three times in the last decade. all these folks whether it has been in hampton roads in richmond, whether it is the folks in louisa and central virginia in the earthquake or the folks in huntington have been saying we just need that -- that assistance that other communities have had when they've been met by natural disasters. what purpose do we have for government other than to make sure there is an emergency response and after that response that there is an ability to get people back on their feet? i want to thank my colleagues again, particularly the senator from louisiana who has been tireless on this issue of making sure that fema has the resources they need to address these disasters and we do that in a meaningful way, recognizing of course that we can't just put these on the credit card forever. and that we have to have a rational way to pay back. but to figure out an important 10-year rolling psychle to

budget for emergencies ought to be part of our discussions going forward. trying to say at this moment, the downturn of the recession, that somehow communities in need whether they're in oregon or whether they're in virginia or one of the 48 states who have been hit by -- had a disaster declaration over the last year is not the way we ought to be -- ought to be doing business. but mr. president, in addition to that i rise today to encourage our president, president obama, other use his authority under an act that probably most in this chamber are not that familiar with. it is called the 1906 antiquities act to designate hampton, virginia's fort monroe as a national monument, which would make it an official part of the national park service. and our hope is that he will -- the president will consider designating this in the coming days when this historic fort is turned back over to the state of virginia as it has been -- gone

due a process during the bracc process of the federal government disposing of it. let me take a moment on the floor and tell you about this special place. this fort was built in the early 1800's but actually the fortifications go back earlier than this. an area called important -- point comfort, and as early as 1608 captain john smith recognized the importance of building a fort at port comfort as the english colonists called this land. from its beginnings fort monroe has been associated with key figures in american history. robert e. lee supervised work on the fortress as a young lieutenant. edgar allen poe, the famous poet, who our pages had to memorize "the raven" in high school but edgar allen poe was a soldier at fort monroe. abraham lincoln during the midst

of the civil war paid a critical visit to fort monroe. and harriet tubman, an incredibly important american who was only recently in the last 50 years been recognized appropriately, harriet tubman nursed wounded soldiers there in 1865. as well one other historic american figure had kind of more of a maybe mixed efforts at fort monroe and that was jefferson davis, who was at fort monroe on two different occasions, first as the united states secretary of war and later as the former president of the confederacy he was imprisoned at fort monroe for two years. by world war ii, fort monroe was the headquarters of our military's successful efforts to protect the mid-atlantic coast. after world war ii, and to the current day, it has been home of the army command responsible for training or war fighters. but for all of these investigators events that alone

i would argue as a virginian that would warrant the designation of fort monroe as part of the national park service but its true historic significance goes back actually to a night in may of 1861. you see, during the civil war, fort monroe had an important strategic role as one of the very few union military installations located in the south that was never occupied by confederate forces. the folks who have traveled down to norfolk and virginia beach, fort monroe is the point that sticks out right before you go through the bridge tunnel that takes youover to norfolk and virginia beach. it has a commanding view of the whole gateway into what we call hampton roads. on may 23, 1861, three slaves, frank baker, shepherd molloy and james townsend got

into a small boat in hampton, crossed the james river and presented themselves at the front gate of fort monroe seeking safety and sanctuary. for the previous many weeks baker, mallory and townsend had been forced by their owner to construct a confederate are a till rear position aimed directly at fort monroe. obviously that was not something these individuals wanted to be part of. i want you to think for a moment about the chase -- the choices made by these three men, these three slaves, baker, malary and townsend. they left behind the community where they had spent most if not all their lives. at least two of the three left behind wife and children. it was entirely possible once these three men reached fort monroe the union soldiers would simply turn them around and send them back to their owners. one of the things i think even students of american history

sometimes forget was that it was the official u.s. government policy even in the so-called confederate states after the civil war began in april of 1861 to still turn slaves back over to their owners. and baker, malary and townsend had to know that if they were returned as run-aways they could expect the most draconian of punishments. but they figured the choice should be theirs to make, so they made it. they soon found themselves standing before the new commander of fort monroe, major general benjamin franklin butler. deciding it might be easier to apologize later rather than seek permission beforehand, general butler made a huge and historically courageous decision. he classified the three slaves as contraband, quote, unquote,

of war, a policy that was later adopted across the union to protect any slaves who managed to reach union lines. and as a result, virginia's fort monroe ultimately became a beacon of hope for thousands of enslaved people seeking freedom. in fact, fort monroe became known as the freedom fort. the day after general butler's edict, eight more slaves showed up at fort monroe. the day after that, 47 more appeared. by the war's end, thousands, literally thousands had appealed for contraband status at fort monroe. general butler's declaration of -- quote, unquote -- contraband of war, this decision helped change the course of the civil war and our nation's history. this thursday, september 15, the united states army will officially hand over fort monroe to the city of hampton and the commonwealth of virginia as part

of the 2005 brac process. and i proudly join with my colleague, senator webb, the bipartisan virginia house delegation, virginia's governor bob mcdonnell, local residents and national trust for historic preservation in urging the president to take this opportunity to declare fort monroe a national historic treasure. by using the antiquities act to grant this designation, it also would allow us to begin the work to create a national park at fort monroe. for more than 100 years, presidents have used the antiquities act to protect some of america's most important and beloved historic places. as a matter of fact, it was use of the antiquities act that first designated the grand canyon as well as the statue of liberty. so obviously enormous historic precedent. and there is no dispute over the historical significance of fort monroe. for the last few years i spent a

considerable amount of time with this governor and then subsequent -- both as governor and now as senator working with state and local residents and officials to explore the opportunity to partner with the national park service to preserve this incredible piece of american history. i spoke as recently as last friday with the white house about fort monroe. i am hopeful that we will have promising news in short order. it would certainly be timely if the president's decision could be announced this week as the army prepares to exit fort monroe, as our nation marks the 150th anniversary of the civil war, and as many virginians focus anew on the future this have very special place. i feel this is an especially appropriate time for the president to recognize the crucial role fort monroe has played in our nation's history, and i again urge him to use his long-established power under the antiquities act to keep this process on track. thank you, mr. president.

with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i also ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. last week, madam president, new trade figures were released. i know the presiding officer from north carolina is very concerned about what's happened with these trade figures and what it means to jobs in her state and my state. the trade deficit with china widened to $27 billion in july. that's one country in one month. granted, it's the country we have the biggest trade deficit with, but it's one month. president bush sr. some years ago said that a billion dollars in surplus, trade surplus or trade deficit translated into some 13,000 jobs.

whether that number is precise or quantifiable or measurable is not the point. the point is that when we have persistently large trade deficits month after month, year after year, now decade after decade, we know what it means to the industrial base in our country. i spent much of august in places like belmont county, ohio, st. clairesville, places like cleveland, places like dayton, places like mansfield, places like springfield where in my state alone the cities and communities with proud, proud industrial heritages, where people had real opportunity to join the middle class after they graduated from high school, they could go and be trained and work in manufacturing and usually buy a home, usually buy a car,

usually send their child to college. my wife was the -- is the daughter of a since-deceased utility worker at ashtabula power plant in northeast ohio. she and her two younger sisters and brother were sent to -- were able to go to, in her case, kent state, other universities, in part paid for by her father's work in manufacturing, if you will, his union card and assistance from government pell grants and all that we're able to do so that kids didn't graduate with huge debt the way they too often do now. the trade -- the trade deficit with china through july, 2011, totaled $160 billion just in those months, up from from $145 billion over the same period in 2010. we debate the budget deficit here as we should, but too many politicians in this city, too many editorial writers, too many

pundits and economists ignore the trade deficit. too focused on things like pay-fors. they ignore how the trade deficit has a dangerous effect on american jobs. they ignore that the fact that the best way to get our fiscal house in order is to get america working again. one way to do that is to crack down on fair trade practices of our so-called trading partners. it's clear, madam president, that when the president steps up and enforces trade rules. while i don't agree with the president's sending the korea, panama, and colombia trade agreements to the congress for votes because i don't believe they serve america's interests, i do believe that this president more than his predecessors has been relatively -- i say relatively, but blessedly so in some cases aggressive at enforcing trade rules. and i have seen that in youngstown, they have created jobs, i have seen it in lorain, in finley, it's created jobs and

it's helped our industry in butler county. in steel, in paper, and in tires. in june, it's clear that part of this problem, this currency manipulation from the chinese which undermine american -- which undermines american manufacturing and our very own job-creating efforts. in june, the economic policy institute released a new report showing addressing chinese currency manipulation could support the creation of of $2.25 million jobs. now, madam president, put that in contrast to what they say the free traders at any cost, the sort of free market, free trade fundamentalists that preach pass nafta. it will mean hundreds of thousands of jobs, cast cafta, it will means hundreds of thousands of jobs. it never does. it means job growth, but the job growth usually takes place. in nafta, it was in mexico. in cafta, it was in central america. in pntr with china, it was east asia. there is job growth.

it just doesn't -- it's not job growth and it's nothing close to net job growth in our country in the united states of america. and even that, the president is saying with this new agreement with south korea that it will sustain or keep or contribute to sustaining or keeping 100,000 jobs or so. so even the promises aren't that great on this new trade agreement, and we know they never live up to the promises. but we do also know if they stood up on currency, it could create 2.85 million new jobs. my friends on the other side of the aisle never want to do any direct spending on infrastructure. i -- in terms of job creation. that costs tax money. i think it's good investment, they don't. but standing up on currency, we know, doesn't cost american taxpayers, and it will, in fact, mean american jobs. a paper mill in butler county down near cincinnati, between dayton and cincinnati. someone worked with that paper

mill told me that they are now competing with china. when china for coated paper -- it's a higher tech manufacturing of paper, the kind of magazine paper that we all touch and use, that the -- the pulp comes from brazil, it's shipped to china, it's milled in china, it's shipped back to the united states and they undercut american prices. yet, only 10% of the cost of paper production is labor. so what does that mean? it means they are gaming the currency system. it means they are subsidizing water, they are subsidizing capital, they are subsidizing land and they are paying low wages. and how do you compete when they are not playing fair? forget the low wages even for a minute. how do you compete when they are playing these currency games. by continuing the currency manipulation, we lose far too many jobs. by combating currency manipulation, we help level the playing field for our manufacturers, we help our workers, we help spur our economic recovery. that's why i introduced the currency reform for fair trade

act. it would strengthen counterveiling duty laws to consider undervalued currency as an unfair subsidy. so when we contest, when we contest on a trade agreement, all we're saying when we contest is that undervalued currency is considered an unfair subsidy. because it is. it's not hard to convince people of that. it's not hard to illustrate that, it's not hard to prove that. so when an industry like the coated paper company in hamilton or the oil company tubular steel used in drilling in lorain, ohio, or youngstown, ohio, where there is a new steel mill because of a decision the president made or a loom facility in sidney, currency manipulation under this new bill and amendment that we're going to offer on the floor will be part of that investigation. this designation would ensure the government has the tools to respond on behalf of american manufacturers and workers by imposing counterveiling duties on subsidized exports from

china. we have broad support here. senator schumer from new york has been very involved. senator snowe from maine has been very involved. senator stabenow from michigan has been very involved. senator graham from south carolina, a republican, has been very involved in understanding that these kinds of currency manipulations undermine american jobs -- cost us american jobs, undermine our economy. this bill would make sure that the designation would ensure the government has the tools to respond on behalf of american manufacturers and workers by imposing these counterveiling duties on subsidized exports. it's simple, straightforward, it's achievable. addressing currency manipulation would decrease our budget deficit up to $70 billion a year. somewhere between $500 billion and $800 billion over ten years is sustained. addressing our trade deficits should be part of the debate in reducing our budget deficit. if we're going to create jobs, we have got to ensure that our trading partners don't stack the deck. we want trade. we want more of it.

we want fair trade, not this kind of phony free trade. in fact, madam president, almost every country in the world practices trade according to their national interests. the united states of america in this body and the president of the united states typically, presidents of both parties have practiced trade according to some textbook, economics textbook that has been 20 years out of date. if we're serious about standing up for american workers and companies that continue to play by the rules, we need to pass this legislation. with each passing week, more companies, more workers are faced with the harsh reality of unfair competition and unwanted cutbacks due to chinese currency manipulation. in counsels and cities across our state, go anywhere in this country. go to texas where senator hutchison is awaiting a chance to speak on the floor. go to north carolina, the presiding officer's state. go to my state. we see that companies are faced and workers are faced with the harsh realities of that unfair competition. workers have the proud tradition of making products that matter to america, from the tanks made in lima, ohio, supporting our

troops abroad to steel tubes created in lorain, ohio, equipping our energy markets, ohio manufacturers are vital to our nation's security and economy. our national security, our economic security, our family security, all of those are dependent on making things in the united states of america. my state is the third largest manufacturing state in the country. we're seventh in population but we're third in manufacturing. we -- we have lost far too many jobs in zanesville and jackson and columbus and akron because of this -- this undermining of -- because of this gaming of the system of china -- the way china has gamed the system on currency. it's time to take bold action. it's time to stand up to china. it's time to practice trade according to our communities and our national interests. it's time to do that, madam president. it's time to pass this legislation. i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas.

mrs. hutchison: madam president, i want to mark today, september september 14, 2011, as the day that nasa has announced our vision for the future. since the shuttle was retired earlier this year and we saw the last people go into space on an american flight, many of us have worried that there wasn't going to be another heavy launch vehicle that would take our astronauts to above the below earth orbit and beyond. today, after much study and a lot of going back and forthwith nasa, i was encouraged to see the design approved by both nasa and the o.m.b., and i think it is going -- well, it will be the

heaviest, biggest, strongest, most robust vehicle that we've seen since we put men on the moon. and i -- i was very concerned because of the long time frame. congress asked that this design be delivered by january of this year, and we kept getting delays and delays and delays, and finally senator bill nelson and i just got frustrated about that time line, and we have had meetings, and as recently as yesterday, i wanted to meet with the director of o.m.b., mr. jack lew, who did come to my office to meet with senator nelson and myself, and general bolden who is the nasa administrator to get his commitment that we would be on a robust time line, that it would be as much a priority of

nasa to go beyond low earth orbit as the ferry to the space station, which is the interim vehicle would be for nasa, and we got those assurances. and mr. lew, the nasa administrators, senator rockefeller was represented, senator boozman, we had all the relevant people in the loop on this issue because we want to make sure that congress and the administration are on the same goal with a time line to achieve that goal. what worried us about the delays were the loss of cost efficiencies and the loss of the experienced personnel to design that new heavy launch vehicle. we want to have the most experienced engineers that will use the proven technology that has been time tested and add to

that proven technology the added boosters, the added capabilities that we know we must have to go to mars, to an asteroid and to make sure that we do it in a safe manner. i am very encouraged by the commitments that were made and the timetables that we are seeing. i'm told by the nasa personnel that we are now going to look for one week or two to have the contract modifications in place that will tell the workers that they're going to have those jobs that we're going to have that experience that they've got a project to work on. and i think it is essential that we have that kind of experienced personnel to do this. so i am very pleased that we

have now this way forward. it is the most powerful vehicle that we will have seen in many, many years. and i think the announcement today is going to set us on a path. and if we can see those contract modifications going out from nasa in the next week or a little more, but no more than two weeks from now, then we will know that there is progress and that we are going toward the time when we will have the building of that rocket, that we will have the design followed by the building, and then of course the testing, and then the launch. i think when we saw that thraft flight come down -- saw that last flight come down this summer, so many people were, had very mixed feelings because space exploration has been a part of america's drive and spirit for all these years that

we have watched more and more things be accomplished, from president kennedy's first challenge that we would put men on the moon, americans have been excited about that opportunity. they haven't just been excited, though, about the exploration and the pushing the envelope. they have also been excited with the quality of life that has been produced by what came from the research, the advancements that we've had in medical treatment, m.r.i.'s, the advancements in clothing and the flammability, the weightlessness, the kinds of products that we have been able to discover. i fully expect that with the space station we're going to be able to do the research on

cancers that will grow in the microgravity conditions in space, that will not grow the same way on earth, and that maybe we will be able to test antidotes and medicines for those. that's why i was pleased that the president did announce that we would extend the space station until 2020. we have international partners as well. so we want to make sure that we are a good partner, that we're a reliable partner and that we do some things for mankind that might make a difference in our lives. the national security, we have gained so much in satellite-guided missiles for our national security and being able to put a missile into a window from one mile out is because we have been able to discover in space the use of satellites. this last trip that was taken on

the magnotomer that dr. ting, noble laureate at m.i.t. built and insisted on put into the station, that is going to be new sources of energy. we're looking at how matter was formed. we're looking at the cosmic rays. i went to the johnson space center in houston and saw from the space station the maginot tomorrow ter that was -- the magnetometer getting hits from cosmic rays. there were 60 scientists in the room tracking these hits, trying to determine what was happening when those cosmic rays hit the magnetometer because they want to see if we can harness an energy source that might be used in space or might be harnessed for earth. there are things that we haven't even thought of that we hope to find by using the space station and then going to an asteroid or

going to the moon. so we've taken a first step today, and i think that many people in america were waiting for the blueprint for the future. and now i think we have one. and as long as we stay on a regular timetable and the funding levels that had been approved already in the authorization bill passed by congress and signed by the president, if we can stick with those, this has the potential to bring us energy, health, possibly curing breast cancer, things that will make a difference in the lives not only of americans but of our fellow citizens all over the world. and that's what the investment can be in nasa if we go forward as we have made this blueprint to do. we are in a time where we must

be more efficient. we phufpt fund the priorities and not fund the lesser priorities. in today's markup of our committee, our appropriations committee that does fund nasa, we have found the priorities. we also cut programs. senator mikulski said in her whole time in the senate she's never been an appropriator that actually cut programs. but we did today. we cut programs that were lesser priorities in different areas of our jurisdiction. but we funded nasa so that we would have this heavy-launch vehicle. we would fund the commercial vehicle that is going to take our astronauts to the space station. that's going to be done in the private sector. and that was the balance that we did in our authorization bill last year. and then we fund the web

telescope because that's part of the scientific advances that we must make if we are going to know what is out there in space, that we might be taoeubl utilize or ute -- be able to utilize or utilize the knowledge for better life on earth. i'm very pleased that we have the appropriations committee that will hopefully approve the bill tomorrow and that we have made those tough decisions and we came in under the 2011 continuing resolution on our overall bill. we came in under the president's request. but we have fully funded the priorities which have the possibility to reap the benefits from exploration and assuring that america remains the number-one country in the world in space exploration.

our economy has benefited. our national security has benefited. and now we're going to be looking at health care possibilities, energy possibilities and living in space and seeing how we can do that in a better way. so i think we have a plan that will excite the american people, again, about what we can do in space if we put our minds to it, if we prioritize, if we're efficient with american dollars and we don't lose sight of the vision that is the spirit of america. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: