the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized.

mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hatch: mr. president, as i understand it, we're prepared to vote? the presiding officer: that is correct. under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment number 642 offered by the senator from utah, mr. hatch, with two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote. the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: thank you, mr. president. i rise in support of my amendment number 642. it's fairly simple. it tightens the nexus between t.a.a. benefits and jobs lost bus -- because of a stricter standard on t.a.a. benefits. the standard offered by those on the other side of the aisle says trade if not necessarily more tphaorpb any other -- cause of the job loss. we would return that nexus to a substantial cost of job loss which is the nexus established

by president reagan and by returning to the stricter t.a.a. standard. this amendment puts reasonable constraints on the program to stop it from expanding into another out-of-control spending program. i ask my colleagues to constrain t.a.a. by supporting this amendment. mr. wyden: mr. president, i rise in opposition to the hatch amendment. in a time of surging chinese imports, high unemployment and widespread economic pain, the hatch amendment would make it harder for workers, companies and farmers to be -- to obtain trade adjustment assistance and be better positioned to compete in the global economy. the hatch amendment would take us back to the standard for qualifying for t.a.a. benefits. chairman baucus and chairman camp put together a reasonable

t.a.a. agreement that is bipartisan. that bipartisan agreement ought to be preserved which is why the amendment by the senator from utah should be rejected. i strongly urge a "no" vote on the amendment. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are 57. under the previous order

requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the question occurs on the amendment number 645 offered by the senator from arizona, mr. kyl, with two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote. the senate will be in order. senators are asked to take their conversations from the well so that senator kyl can be heard on his amendment. the senate will be in order. mr. kyl: mr. president, this amendment is very simple. it eliminates one small piece of the t.a.a. program called t.a.a. for firms. why would i do this? strictly for bipartisan reasons to demonstrate my agreement with president obama who also supports the repeal of this particular piece of the t.a.a.

in his budget submission of this year, it specifically recommended the elimination of this program. it's only $16 million a year, but it's inefficient, as the president's budget pointed out it does not achieve its objectives as well as other programs do, measured against other programs, the firms that are supposedly helped actually failed at a bigger rate than any other firm that isn't in the program, and as a result, i decided that i would support one of the elements of the president's budget to eliminate this t.a.a. for firms program. friends, if we are serious about any kind of reform for t.a.a., surely we could agree upon a clearly bipartisan proposal of the president of the united states which is supported by republicans in the united states senate. i ask for your support for this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: mr. president, i rise in opposition to the kyl amendment. it's an antismall business amendment. there is a lot of talk around

here about government getting out of the way of job creators, but let's be clear, firms using t.a.a. are those job creators. they are small businesses, r.b.b. systems in worcester, ohio, c.b. manufacturing in west carlton, auto and trucks suppliers. in my state alone, 96% of companies assisted with t.a.a. for firms, this program that senator kyl wants to eliminate, 96% of those companies that were in business in 2006 are still in business. when a job creator goes out of business because of an unfair trade deal, we know what happens. workers lose their jobs, communities lose revenues, foods for schools are cut, funds for public services. t.a.a. is a life line not just for workers but this program for firms, t.a.a. for firms is a life line for small businesses and community schools and all of that that matters to our tax base and to our communities. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the kyl amendment. the presiding officer: all time

is expired. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 4 3-rbg the nays are 54. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.

the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask that we go -- i ask unanimous consent that we go to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes eve during that period of time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i'll turn this over to my friend right now. mr. mccain: could i just ask the majority leader, reserving the right -- mr. reid: i just want to -- mr. mccain: for about two minutes for me and the chairman to have a a colloquy. mr. reid: we think we're on path to complete this most important piece of legislation in the morning. this is an agreement that we had that we would try to finish this and we'll expeditiously work toward other matters relating to trade as soon as we can.

mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. cane can i just want to -- mr. mccain: i just wanted to inform the majority leader, i would ask to have a brief colloquy with the chairman, who i think is going to be back in a few minutes. just a brief coul queerks not an amendment or anything of that nature. in the meantime, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call would be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i'd like to also ask unanimous consent to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i would like to thank senator baucus for his continued support of the people and country of moldova. i understand that in the amendment to the legislation that's pending would be harmful to the progress of the trade agreements. and i appreciate the fact that, and hope that the chairman can perhaps hopefully before the end of the year take up the repeal

of jackson-van nick as it ap-- jackson vannick as it applies to the country in moldova, a country very much in need of it. i ask my complete statement be made part of the record and quote from vice president biden who said -- quote -- "we will work with the congress and your government, in his conversation with the vice president in moldova, this year said we will work with the congress and your government to lift the jackson-vannick amendment. we believe that would be good for moldova and the united states." i ask unanimous consent that a letter from the national council on soviet jewry concerning monthly dough srab made part of the record -- moldova be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i want to thank the president for his

consideration. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: i want to thank the senator for bringing this up. moldova is a country which joined the world trade organization in 2001 and for various reasons, basically it's jackson-vanik, the relic of jackson-vanik, moldova has not been granted pntr but moldova made huge, successful strides in its government, its political and economic reforms. i'm very impressed with moldova, a friend of the united states. although we cannot deal with an issue on this bill, i want to make it very clear to my friend, we will take up legislation this year to assure that moldova is granted pntr status and is a full member in the world community. i make that pledge to my friend

we'll get that done this year. mr. mccain: i want to thank the chairman, and i know he has an incredibly heavy schedule, with the legislation that is before us today and other matters before the committee. but i also know that he knows, and i want to assure him that the people of moldova hear of his commitment, this will be a happy day in moldova. mr. baucus: i thank the senator for standing in for the people of moldova. mr. mccain: mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. baucus: i ask consent john cole a fellow in the office of senator pryor be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of h.r. 2332, the generalized system preference act. h.r. 2832. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that following morning business tomorrow, september 22, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 2832. the only remaining amendments in order to the casey-brown-baucus amendment and the bill be the following -- 651, 650, and cornyn 654.

there be five hours of debate on the rubio and cornyn amendments equally divided between the two designees with senator cornyn controlling one hour of the republican time, senators rubio and thune each controlling 30 minutes of the republican time. the time being controlled by the majority leader after consultation with senator mcconnell, the senate proceed to the rubio, cornyn, casey amendments. that there be no amendments or motions in order prior to the amendments other than motions to the budget points of order applicable to motions to waive. each vote be subject to a 60-vote threshold. there be two minutes of debate prior to each vote. in addition to the amendments, the bill as amended be read a third time. up to ten minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees prior to vote on passage of the bill if amended. that the bill be subject to a 60-vote threshold. finally, there be no points of order or motions in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage of the bill other than budget points of order and the applicable motion to waive.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. i ask consent that we proceed to calendar number 115, s. res. 17. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 115, s. con. res. 17, expressing the sense of congress that taiwan should be accorded observer status in the international civil aviation organization. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. i know of no further debate on this resolution. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. mr. reid: aye. the presiding officer: all opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and

any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask that we -- that the -- i'm sorry. i ask unanimous consent that the committee on small business be discharged from further consideration of s. 633. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 633, a bill to prevent fraud and small business contracting, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the murray amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, any statements relating to the measure appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m., september september 22. following the prayer and pledge,

the journal of proceedings be approved to date, morning hour be deemed expired, time for the two leaders be riffed for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business for up to one hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, following morning business, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2832. at a time to be determined tomorrow, there will be up to five votes on amendments to trade adjustment assistance and passage of the bill. in addition, we await the action of the house on the continuing resolution. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that we adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

chairman of the natural resources committee said energy production could help of the economic recovery. alaska representative don young agreed. >> we are talking about anwr. we are talking about 1002.

2000 acres of land, the footprint will be that size and put it people the work and will give mr. hall and opportunities to have this in in the military to finish his education and his kids go to school and provider provide a living for his family. you are sitting in washington d.c. you in their friends who have made a fortune out of his job. it has been a fortune, yes i happen to know where you are in washington d.c.. you are sitting around not letting those people do as they should. now i think you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. >> watch this event at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. ♪ ♪

>> spend this weekend in charlotte north carolina with booktv in american history tv. throughout the weekend visit literary life from the side of the 2012 democratic national convention. on booktv on c-span2, charlotte banking industry with me town author rick rob becker and karen cox of, how the south was created in american popular culture. also to learn about the relationship between independent bookstores and publishers. and on american history tv on c-span tv tour 11th president james polk' birthplace and a discussion with charles jones on his experiences during the 1960s lunch counter sit in's and visit the reid goldmine, where gold was first discovered in america. booktv and american history tv in charlotte, north carolina this weekend on c-span2

>> congressional republicans sent a letter this week urging the federal reserve to refrain from lowering interest rates, saying further would harm the economy. senate majority whip dick durbin said sending that letter was an appropriate. his remarks from the senate floor are 10 minutes. >> this morning we learned that the t republican leaders of the house of representatives and the united states senate have done something which may behi unprecedented. we are searching for some example in the past when this has occurred, but we have the learned today that the

republican leaders of those the house and the senate have sent a letter to federal reserve chairman ben bernanke ahead of the central bank's two-day meeting that against today. that letter to chairman bernanke from the republican congressional leaders instructsl them as to what they should try to achieve during their two-daye meeting.his the former commissioner of the federal reserve said this is le outrageous, that an independent agency like the federal reservec which has operated with the independence of political impact and political pressure over thei yearsvi would now be receiving direct political communications from the republicann leaders.blc what is theea message of thee republican leaders to the federal reserve? the messages, don't lower interestte rates. i now i don't know if senator sper mcconnell, senator kyl, congressman speaker boehner congressman cantor have been home lately, but if they haveme been home and met with local

businesses, small businesses,at they i will learn very quicklyto that it is very difficult for them to borrow money to sustaine and expand their businessess ane to hire more people. as we have a monetary policy which allows expansion of thesei businesses and expansion of jobs across america, we have anto t opportunity tory t try to put ts recession behind us. t so what is the message of thee a republican leaders to the federal reserve board?ar the message is clear and simple, do-nothing. stand by thech sidelines and wah this economy languish. at the same message thent of th republican leaders are sending the unitedident ofe states. he came to us almost two weeks ago and said, we have gotove toy move together to make this economyst stronger. ge we have got to find a waye working together to create jobs. the president said, let's giveoi to working families across america a tax cut, payroll tax cut. avege the average family will receive about $1500 a year in my stateer

of illinois. this will help those families that are working but struggling to paycheck. the republican response to theml no. they said to the president they will not accept a payroll tax cut for -- for the working families across america. said let's give to businesses across america somehow. let's reduce thet, payroll tax r in an feckless graded tax incentive for these businesses o to hire unemployed workers.nty f we know that there are plenty od people out there who need work and some businesses with an enticement to the tax code mayo be able to finally hire that extra work or can reduce themenl unemployment rolls.the the republican answer again is a no.in ehe time and again when he threw the federal reserve board ofer the s president or in factug any economist suggest that we need to move forward as a nationto tn deal withhe the recession, then answer from the republican side of the aisle is no. the now with federal reserve to republican congressional leaders are telling thehe federal reserve wa believe for the first time in

history that they should not in this economy a intert vehicle for expansion by lowering the interest rates. the that's to me is wrongheaded. when i think of the businesses looking to borrow money and when i think of those homeowners whot need rat to refinance their homs interest rates are critically important for the this economy.ch to time and again the republican approach to this economy has a been simply stated in just a few words, do-nothing and protect the millionaires. a when the president steps up and says asking the wealthiest among us to pay something more in terms of theirir own taxes is oy fair and the republicans cry usd foul, class warfare and all thet things they use to defend their decision. must peopleun across americae ae understand that we are going toe have to have shared sacrifice te emerge from this recession.fice a lot of families are making out sacrifice today.inco working families and middle-income families areant falling behind. we want to help them with

payroll tax cuts and by creating life in this economy thatnforna creates new jobs.he unfortunately, we have no helpcn coming from the republican side of the aisle. p the president believes as we dot that putting workers back on the job well while rebuilding and s modernizing america is the bestu way to see us through this t recession. he believes that there areob pathways fors. americans lookine for jobs.emplme he wants to restructure the unemployment compensation program come, using some innovative techniques that haven been popular in the past with be republicans which are now being rejected because the president offers them. an idea that has been suggestedm ofe allowing some unemployed workers to come back to work and still draw unemployment so they can have valuable work experience and perhaps find a long-term permanent position toe work with. tax relief for workers of families across america, cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers is going to be something they need.ies a

many of these workers and gas working families are struggling with high gasoline prices. there are $125 a month mean that senator or congressman? maybe notou but if you are livig paycheck to paycheck and you saw gasoline go over $4 a gallon,al $125 is absolutely essential sof you can make a back and forth to work and do the things necessary for your family.dent p the presence payroll taxay cut will help these working families and the republicans oppose i it. re this plan also has deficit we reduction. do the president understands, as we all do, thathat the deficit ameo now faces in their long-term debt need to be faced squarely.s he believes and i share the belief we should spend the next year building the economy but makeno it clear that over thenga long-term we are going to takee the actions necessary to reduce our deficit substantially over - 10 year period of time by morent than $4 trillion. thatce isd what the president announced when he made a statement on monday.g

he also realizes that while cutting the deficit and reducink america's debt, we have to keepe our promise. who the promise to americans who receive social security. madam president 26% of social security recipients have no ncome.source of i to talk about cutting thosese benefits or privatizing social security as many republicans do, you are putting at risk literally the lifeblood of 26% of social security recipients. for 70% of social security recipients it represents more thanpr half of their income. they listen carefully as the the basic edifice under social security. thing thing medicare. medicare is a program that haso been successful.t don't take my word for it and don't take any politician's word for it.y look at the life expectancy ofnt senior citizens and we passediz medicare in the 60s. senior citizens can live independently with more confidence and live longer because of medicare. we know it to make changes in lt

this program but let's d do it n the spirit of preserving the basic t benefit structure of medicare. that is essentially in thehe president has made that clear to me.to those on the republican side whd support the congressman paul ryan budget which would basically hand out vouchers to seniors and say good s luck in e ignore the reality that as people age they sometimes face medical challenges that others don't have.en they need the benefit and protection of medicare and years to come. thehe president is committed to that in the democrats are committed to that.theam shoulde be a bipartisant commitment. the same thing is true when it comes to medicaid.that this is a programs across ameria that is essential in new york te and illinois. 36% of all the children in the state of alumni rely on medicaid for healthce. insurance. m more than half of the babies born in my state are paid for by the medicaid program in 20% ofnm medicaid recipients in illinois consume 60% of the money spent.o most of them are elderly peoplen who are very poor, living on medicare and relying on medicain

to stay in a convalescent setting or a nursing hometect setting. so medicaid has to be protected asas well. that is a challenge to the present and those ofmocr us on i democratic side except.san the bottom line is this, we can move this economy forward in a coordinated a bipartisan effortx who use the presence payroll tax cuts, the business tax cuts that are fully paid for, make certain that we are dedicated to rebuilding america and its basic and the structure and make certain as well that we take care of our own. the veterans returning from war, 10% of whom are out of worknt. today. that is an embarrassment and ito is one that should come to an end immediately. we should work on a bipartisan basis to encourage their beingan high. thing madam president there's another thing that worries me is become to the end of worri this week ad a week of recess for the house in the and the senate. the republican leader, congressman eric virginia clement suggested wee may be facing another government shutdown threat. rep

that is justub incredible. the republican leader would bring that up as one of the options as we go into this weekd before recess. we don't need this.s we have faced two previous threats this year from the tea party dominated republican house of representatives. they threaten to close down the whennment we passed the r continuinges resolution.ed again they threaten again to close down the economy when we were facing the debt ceiling.s at this moment, this perilous eo moment in american economicc history, we shouldn't base a government shutdown again and the republican leaders of theg t how should not be suggesting that as an alternative. botm we need to work together. the bottom-line issue is disaster aid.yo k ino think the senator from new york nowwe says i do in illinoi, we face these natural disasters. 48 states have this year. hurricane irene i know did tremendous damage in the stateen of new york. earlier this flooding of the mississippi ande

the ohio rivers did tremendous damage in my state off illinoisa we can predict when these natural disasters will, and we certainly can't predict howch mh they will cost. and now the republicans in the house are insisting that we have to pay for every dollar ofla disaster aid. it. it is a program that we create to encourage the creation of manufacturing jobs in the united states, making fuel-efficient vehicles. the republicans say it lemonaden it.g ameca eliminated program focused on putting americans back to work in good-paying jobs, building the vehicles of the future so we can be competitive not only atay home but overseas?g the republican g say that is something government should not do. it is at' consistent pattern,fer whether it is their message to the federal reserve d to do nothing when it comes to lowering interest rates, when it is their message to the president to do nothing when it comes to payroll taxes to help middle-income families, business

tax credits for people to goco back to work but when it comes to paying for disasters where they suggest eliminating a s program that will createn manufacturing jobs in the united states. time and again the philosophy of the republicans comes through.hg stand. by and do nothing. we saw it as well when it came to make t certain that general motors and chrysler survive the crisis of the last several years. the republican position was, doe nothing. are at many employees whose jobs are at stake when we talk about the automobile industry, all across america. we often think of. oft some of e vague names now that we see everyday in the news. there are about 3000 employees a of an operation known as facebook. there are about 30,000 employees of a company known as google. there are 200,000 directto employees of general motors. not to mention the millions whos are suppliers and vendors of their products. that is an indication to me of the shortsightedness of the aro

republican approach. ignoring the reality of antomobe autumn of bill industry that id needed a helping hand meant that if the republicans had their.m. and chrysler may not t ist today. did thank goodness they didn't have their way and the president stepped thpp in, made the changes necessary, encourage the management of these companies to o restructure in light of the new economic realities and theiny company survive. in my own state of illinois in belvidere we were proud to have a chrysler facility. t ike talked with the ceo of chrysler and he believes and i certainly concur that thishat is facility has a bright future because the government help chrysler through an economic crisis and now they areth restructuring to build for the future.risi vie is the kind of forward-looking economy which we need. in the republicans when the republicans instruct thel fedel reserve or to do nothing to help the economy, say to the president do nothing to help the economy and then threaten the government shutdown over paying for disaster relief across america, that to me a short-sighted.

is not consistent with economic growth we need in this country to make certain that we we are movingrowt forward. madam president i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. >> today in the senate minority leader mitch mcconnell spoke about his opposition to president obama's new deficit reduction plan for just under 1e minutes.a >> there has been a lot of d debate in the past week about the latest proposalsebe we a cot of the white house. about whether the president stimulus bill or the tax hikes he is proposing b will help or hurt theropo economy. based onn what we are hearing from the white house this week it is hard to see the point in having any debate at all. i'm referring to a comment by the white house communicationsr director who told "the new york times" on monday that the president had entered what he referred to as a new phase, a new phase. pse he said the present day workedke with republicans to avert ad government shutdown last springt and to c raise the debt ceiling

this summer, but that quote, fat faces behind us, end of quote. in other words the white house has been interested in accomplishingnter anything anym. is more interested ine making a point than making a difference. so here is my question. how do you explain to the 14 million americans looking foa at job right now that you are in more interested in motivating campaign supporters then in motivating businesses too hire? for the past week, the president has t been running around the country trying to set a record for the number of times he can say, pass this bill right away in a five minute stump speech.di meanwhile, hisct communication director is telling people the president doesn't expect the bill to pass.is and a democratic majority leader of the senate is treatinge itmyf like a legislative afterthought. my friend a majority leader said yesterday that he might take up this supposedly urgent they'll h

nextad month after he has had a chance to deal with the currency bill and a few others. as for the other democrats in congress they are not exactly rushing to get it in the queue either. i mean the so-called jobs bill s seems to be about as popular as the lender and i'm just talking about among democrats. yet the president is out there acting like somebody is actually putting up a fight. lik is so this whole thing is acan charade. i think the american people deserve better. i think they deserve a president who realizes governing involves working with the situation as it is, not as you would like it to be. way president obama may think the best t way to distract people fm the challenges is we face is to stand near a bridge in a swingrp state and pit one group of americans against another andcsl hope his critics looks bad if they don't go along with him. hm but i don't think he is foolingg anybody. i don't think all the campaign stops in the world are going to

convince most americans the real cause of our problems lies anywhere other than what the policies that are coming out of washington thesesh days.o or that the single greatest obstacle to job creation in america today are policies thatk punish the risk-takers and theyo entrepreneurs t that stifle investment in private enterprise rewarding it.ig when it comes right down to it,s think most americans care more about results than about rhetoric.lts let's be honest, the real salts of this president's economic policies speak for themselves. after two and a half years of government spending, here is what we have got.its, c record deficits, chronichr unemployment, median incomes going down, poverty rates going up, and the first ever creditly downgrade.ud this isn't exactly a record to be proud of.anti soo i can understand the president wanting to change the

topic. it might make him feel better and it might energize their strongest supporters but here is something you won't do. it won't create jobs.jo look, if we could solve our jobs crisis and revive the economy, by passing the hat at warrant of its annual shareholders meeting we would have done it by now. but we can't. why?soluon because. it is not a real solution.presidt it is a campaign slogan. day the president said the other day that tax hikes he is proposing art class warfare. he said they are math. begin began to mass too. t so let's do the math. according to the irs, if youden double, double the tax burden on everybody in america who earned more than a million dollars in 2009, you would cover the cost of three months of deficit spending around here.ed

if you'd double the tax burdend on earned more than $1 million, back in 2009, you would cover the cost of about three months of the deficit. o if you confiscated every dime oo taxable income from those theios president refers to as millionaires and billionaires and takere it all, you wouldn't even cover y a single year of deficit spending in washington right now. spending more money in washington won't solve our spending problem. it will enable it. how about the stimulus? one ofst the programs in the stimulus was supposed to create 65,000 jobs. so far it has created 3500 nearly $11 million for jobs.mil $11 millionpe per job.

solyndra was supposed to create tauzin's of berman and jobs. two years later more than 1000 salanter employees are out of work altogether. for more the american taxpayers on the hook for more than half a billion dollars in loans to the company.ost but here is the most important calculation. not a single new job will come h about as a result of the tax hikes the president proposed this week, not one new job. as the national federation of independent business puts it, new tax increases on america's biggest jobng creators are theco last thing the economy needs to that contract.d t what else do we need to now? republicans are ready to work with the president on turning this economy around. we know what would work, and after the past two and half years/2 we certainly know what won't work. ishe my suggestion to the president is the same now as itit's has bn

for months, put aside the work w political playbook, work with us on policies that will actually solve the problems americans care about the most.im let's work together on policiesd that are aimed at motivating job creators, not your political tim base.hange it is time to change course. mr. president i yield the floor. >> the house today rejected a temporary short-term spending bill for fiscal year 2012. democrats pulled their support for the measure when republicans offset $1 billion in fiscal 2011 disaster aid by removing the funds from a federal fuel efficiency program. next, we hear from the need for disaster relief funding.tor >> senator, the leader, came toe the floor to explain the importance of followed by the senator from cod

north dakota, senator conrad, who has himself helped to lead portions of the state literally from the brink of destruction several times, so when a member like senator conrad speaks, we really should listen. he has been through -- excuse me -- but helen back in parts of his state, and he really does at understand what is at stake here. whey and some members who think they knowut about disaster that haved not quite experienced them in their state would be well advised to listen ton his pleas to get this done right now. i want to address three specifie statements that have been made on the floor of the senate by my friends on the other side ofndse aisle that are, with all due respect, patently false. to

leader mcconnell came to theht floor either last night or thise morning because it was reportedq in "the washington post"uo and said, quote, we don't have toor worry because quote, congress always does what is appropriate when it comes to disasters. mr. president i don't even know where to begin to say how falsea that statementt is, and i know that the leader didn't mean to anyone. he just made a comment, like don't have we always do the right thing. mr. president, i was there for katrina and rita. this congress did not always do the right thing. there are still things that t congress should have done in the aftermath of katrina and rita that have not yet done and there is a whole list of things that were done by this congress, but

two years too late or three yea years too late. so let me be very very clear with people following this t debate. dat congress does not always do thes right thing when it comes to disasters and we are about ready to make another mistake. and it is so unnecessary and so unfortunate. number two, there is a disagreement going on aboutnow whether this is politics principle and i know that our side has said, and we believe, there has got to be politicse'so involved as there is o no otheru reason to explain why the house republican leadership continues to throw a wrench into this when it is completely unnecessary. what is the principle that they are fighting for, if it is a principle?

the only principle i can think of, when things are going smoothly blow it because that is what they are doing. what do i mean by that?lain let me take a minute to explain. as the republican house leadership knows full well, the senate in the house have already agreed. wee agreed 30 days ago. we agreed before hurricane t irene.ro before tropical storm lee. before the storms ever happened. the leadership, republican and democratic the big fight that we had over the whole meltdown, not as a government that as a shutdown almost of thego economy.tdown we remember that mr. president, don't we, the big fight we had? in that negotiation the leadership of both houses, republicans and democrats, already agreed in anticipation n that we would be running short

of fema money because we had been running short of fema money now for eight months in anticipation of this. they said in that agreement, we are going to carve out an 11 billion-dollar approximate pot of money or cash adjustmentd so thatme when we come to ask fo disastern' aid, we won't have to fight again. why do we like to fight so much? i mean i can fight. i do fight, but i choose not tol what is the principle the houseb republicans are fighting for?e it must be when things are going smoothly, let's blow it up. that is why i am so frustrated. it is an unnecessary fight to bg having.ai again, we have already made f provisions for $11 billion to the leader, the $6.9 billion,

the below, well within range of this 11 billion-dollar allowance, and lo and behold, leadership says absolutely not, we are not doing that. we are not even goingoing to consider the $6.9 billion.us what we are going to do is justo continue last year's levelf ofen funding, - which was inadequate then. w that is why we have run out of it. so they are going inadequate level that we had last year before all the storms happen and extended for six weeks and claim victory? and then come back times after-the-fact and require for one of the first times, not the first time in history, but i ins one of the few times in history to then grab the back b and say, to m finish up the disaster mony

for 2011 you have to got a a prr program that is very important a soment members, more important o some than others but ann im important program. $1. the house is insisting5 we got g $1.5 billion in aan program that is creating jobs in michigan and otherso parts of the country. so why are we destroying jobs b when we don't have to? when againin it must be the principle of when things are goingrk smoothly, when things are working, when the leadership is actually agreeing for the houser republican leadership to just throw a wrench in braley really mess things up. t thank goodnessen there are 10 ta republican senators in thisinci. chamber that don't follow that a principle of throwing a wrench when things are going smoothly. they follow the principle of common sense and compassion and eating forward-leaning when itmi comes to helping americans who need ourca help.

senators blunt, senator rubio, senator snowe, senator collins, a, senr murkowski, senator browneat from nevada, senator hogan from north dakota, senator toomey from pennsylvania and senator vitter from louisiana. many of whom have experienced disasters in their state in the past and remember thosememb tere days or they are experiencing. them now.and they said, we don't follow the throw the ranch in the gears principle.le,"e' we are going to follow the let'g get it done principle. let's get the work done. let's move forward. let's stop fighting. robust let's provide immediate and robust funding to help our community. so they voted across partye; lines. elect i've done that n before. been elected now three times. you can sometimes crossed party lines to do the right thing. find a middle ground, so theye did. w

they found the ground and we cameme up with a $6.9 billion package. fm let me say to answer specifically the senator from have a lot of respect for, we did not pull this sum out of the year. this $6.9 billion, which is much more robust than the tube.9 that the house wants to provide, is a muchh more accurate estimate. h based on numbers given to the appropriations committee by thee agency who are the agencies in s charge of the disasters fromtere agriculture, from the corps ofrt engineers, so our number, theth 6.9 that is being ridiculed as being pulled out of the air, no contrary. b it was given to us by the camfrm agency. the

absolutely nowhere that has no bearing on any sense of reality today is the number the house pulled up, which is last years number, which was the estimate before the storms even. hit. if you want to argue whichate, e numberas is more accurate, pleae put your m money on our number because you will lose this bet. our number is based on actual estimates that have already been made of disasters that haved. already occurred. in fact, it doesn't even -- we don't have the estimates in.ha we don't even have the estimates yet for tropical storm lee or for irene. it was too early and it takes a while for these numbers. when i say the 6.9 is much better than the 2.6 and more accurate, that is true. t is it the real actual number tas that might take us through next year?ne i even i can say that i mind the i chairman of the committee.

i have more information than anybody in here on this. but i can tell you one thing, is much betterit than 2.65 and much more accurate than and based on realistic estimates. we when people on my site over here say we don't even understandepua whatns the house of republicans, the republicans in the house are fighting about, it is the truth. they picked a fight they didn't need to pick her. they are arguing over something that was aid already decided. on they are rejecting their ownese government estimates of what these disasters caused because of what?ncip on principle? what is the principle? the only thing i can think of and i've said it five times ando i'm going to six day at six,gs must be the principle of let's e throw in a wrench when things are working well. i think the american people are tired of it.

it's exhausting. so we have now projects. we have a list -- here it is. a list that literally is too thick to put into the record ana i'm not going to ask for itsk tb be in the record because somebody will have to stand here for days ande type in and i'm nt going to ask the clerk to dolers that. i want to hold it up so people can see. there are pages and pages and pages of projects. are they are stopped right now. s and iay want to say directly tof the senator from -- i mean the house memberm from alabama whos a the chairman, my counterpart,. there are pages of project here in alabama and his own districts that are stopped. and he is not helping.s n byum supporting last years numbs year's numbers for this year's

disaster. w and i hope that he would rethink and start arguing not for his party but for his state. and sometimes we have to put oud parties aside and fight hard fot our districts and our state. i've done that because it is the right thing to t do. now, these are pages and pages of projects that have b been stopped. okay, they are finish.er, they w are not finished forevere hope that they are stopped. roads, libraries, bridges.l talk about jobs, most of theseas are small businesses as you know mr. president. lik there is not any government agency that swoops ingo to redo all these projects.ha they are localt contractors to get contracts from fema or the corps of engineers. they have issued pink slips right now for these projects.oud you would think that wouldoe motivate people. it can bashsn and doesn't motivg

you orhtness the morality of the situation does not motivatehe y, maybe thousands of jobs would motivate you. none of those seem to be working here. i am running out of enticements. so all these projects have beenl stopped. now will the $2.6 billion that the house is offering start these projects up again? yes they will in their offer that they have put on the tables that they are really pushing us to accept, which we are fightint hard and we don't want to accept it but we will not shut the government down over this, butng we are pushing back as hard asan we can without shutting thenmen government down because d they keep holding the economy hostage over there.t then they hold the government hostage over there but i'm saying a strong way as i can, yes these projects will get started up again.star u they will go for six weeks. pla then we will be back right where

we are, now, which is no place. again, when you have a chance to fix the problem, there is already an agreement that it shouldsh be fixed, already the leadership has agreed how to fix it. and there is an allocation of the money set aside and you still can't do it? why? because we want to come back here in six weeks and have this fight again? how much time is wasted here? do you know what tom ridge said about this who is a republican, the homeland security's first secretary? he said never in theever t histe the country have we worried about the budget around emergency appropriations forly,i natural disasters and frankly in my view we shouldn't be worried about it when mother nature devastates ay community we may need emergency appropriations and we often deau with it andst then d deal with e fiscal issues later on.s

the former secretary of the department is in charge of thise this was a statement he made last week. he sent governor christie, and t spoke with himhe yesterday on ti phone. he said lastt week, you want to, figure out budget cuts? that's fine.they you expect the citizens of my state to weigh? f they're nigot going to it. d i'm going to fight to make sureu they don't do it. n our people are suffering now and they need o s our support now. we need this support now in new jersey. this is not a republican or govr democratic issue. that is from governor chris, i christie, a very popular republican i might say. and then governor bob lobnia, a mcdowell fromno virginia, anothe republican. h my concern is that we help people in need for the fema money that is going to flow. how it is up to them on how they geo it. i don't think itn'in is tkime tt into a deficitt' debate. why are we fighting over this?

why does the house republican leadership think that lastin year's numbers that were inadequate last year, is good enough for this year when as my staff just reminded me, we have had 10 disasters, each one over a billion dollars this last year.d this is mother nature. this wasn't caused by some conspiracy of the democratic party. this is just what happened. why do you want people to have e to worry whether their money will be there or not when you can so easily fix this? on what principle are you standing?eadyro it can't be fiscalor in responsibility. it is already provided for in the budget. and if this is conservativism, i don't think americaam likes tha. i don't think they will accept t that.ervavi it issm not their vision of conservatism. it is a vision of foolishness.

and i also think as patrickhas leahy, the senator from vermont has said many times, many peopl are starting to think,to why isr that some people ines congress rush out to fund programs in afghanistan and iraq and neveren want to debate when we went to war how we were going to pay g i that.n which is literally did 3 it in w days. nobody can question that we were going to pay for it, literally.w i was here. the maybe a few people raised the issue, this is going to be expensive but nobody on the other side did.to to go to war twice? and after a hurricane and and a tornado and i now have to have a not down drag out full-fledged w debate onre how we are going toe pay for every singlery penny give a green light to thesere governors and ayers d county commissioners. it is unnecessary and totally unfair. k so, i don't know what is going to happen. the

we sent a bill over to the house that had $6.9 billion it is much bettere than 2.65 from last yeaa there wasn't sufficient than. we send the bill over, stand-alone bill. the house, they don't think thes number -- they think the numbers too high, take it down a little bit or tell us, we don't thinkoh this item is worth funding. say something.we we could c negotiate on that. number. w it is not written in thehe scripture.t but it is the best estimate weht have of what we actually need right no, now. but no, they won't even look at the bill. they just send us a $2.6 billion on a continuing resolution so basically senate send it to you just take out old hired anre adequate number and we are going to go home and and and then you can just shut the government down if you don't like kin it.

what kind of way is that to treat disaster victims? it is no way at all. senator hagan just told me shese got out of the meeting today. t some of her people are living literally intense. i w know when i went down to my pair some people were sleeping on open air concrete. of unfortunately i have lots of memories about people sleeping on the street, 500 peopleple sleeping under an overpass, waiting for the federal government to provide or the state of the local government to set up a trailer or rental unito you know, and again, if we didn't have the provisions for this already decided, if this isn't the way we had operated in the past, i could understand it but i everything moves us.

the agreement that has beenhior raised, the president's historys thete accurater. estimates of tn disaster but at the repugnance want to fight about it. i think it is a bad fight for them to have, let me just say. and it is really a shame. but we are going to do our besta to getnd immediate and fulld i funding. we'll and if we can't, we will be back here in six weeks talking about it again, which is very unfortunate because youou can'td rebuild tuscaloosa alabama and joplin missouri and parts ofsouh north dakota, minot north dakota and small towns in alaska and a alabama six weeks at a time. you just can't do it. hav the and when we have the money, we have the provision, we have h history and the president on our side in the need is so great for the republican leadership to throw a wrench just because they like to keep things