Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish today to pay tribute to Jonathan M. Topodas, who will be retiring this month after a spectacular 38-year-career with Aetna, one of Connecticut's leading corporate citizens. Jonathan joined Aetna's law department after graduating from Southern Methodist University Law School in 1974. Throughout his tenure with the company, he has provided sound legal advice to many of the firm's clients. More recently, Jonathan joined Aetna's Federal relations team, where he currently serves as the vice president and counsel responsible for Federal health legislative and regulatory matters. In this position, Jonathan has been an important voice in debates about critical health care issues, such as Medicare and patient safety. In addition to his work with Aetna, Jonathan also earned a congressional fellowship through the Brookings Institution in 1979. Through this program, he worked as a counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also serves on the board of directors of the American Benefits Council, and has worked together with respected business organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Jonathan's wife Elaine, an accomplished dancer and teacher, shares his commitment to community service. Elaine is affiliated with several community groups and theaters as a choreographer and director. She is passionate about her work, so much so that she returns to Connecticut during the summer to work with local dance troupes in a variety of settings. I thank Elaine for her contributions to Connecticut's vibrant artistic culture. In his off-work hours, Jonathan enjoys spending time with his three children and two grandchildren. He also loves to explore his deep Greek heritage. Jonathan's ancestors made their living as divers in the Aegean Sea, and Jonathan is known to regale his friends and colleagues with fascinating anecdotes about Greek history and culture, such as the history of the Hippocratic Oath. I wish Jonathan Topodas, and his family, nothing but the best as he gets ready to begin a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today the International Atomic Energy Agency has issued its latest report on the nuclear weapons development program of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This latest IAEA report is the clearest warning about a potentially catastrophic threat to the United States since the Hart-Rudman Commission in January of 2001 predicted a major terrorist attack on our homeland, which, of course, occurred about 9 months later. The IAEA's message today is similarly stark. The extremist terrorist regime that rules Iran is actively working to possess nuclear weapons, and the time to stop them is running out. The Obama administration deserves credit for rallying the international community to put unprecedented diplomatic and economic pressure on the Iranian regime. But the sad fact is nothing the United States and our international partners have done has changed Iran's egregious, threatening, and in many cases murderous behavior, its pursuit of nuclear weapons, its sponsorship of terrorism, its infiltration of neighboring countries, its responsibility for training and equipping terrorists and extremists who have killed literally hundreds of American citizens in Iraq and throughout the Middle East or its repression of its own people. On the contrary, in all of these areas, notwithstanding the increasing international diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime in Iran, that regime's behavior has only grown more emboldened and more reckless. I know some have argued that the United States and our international partners can live with a nuclear Iran and that we can contain it. But the recent discovery of an Iranian terrorist plot, which was to be carried out on U.S. soil, killing the Saudi Ambassador here, targeting Members of Congress, and perhaps eventually the Israeli Ambassador and Embassy provide the clearest possible evidence of why we cannot hope to contain a regime as fanatical, expansionist, and brutal as the one that now rules Iran, particularly when it has the fearsome club of nuclear weapons capacity. If the Iranian regime acquires a nuclear weapons capability, it will be because the world, including us, allowed that to happen. It is still within our power to stop it. But it will require, in my opinion, more than further incremental pressure--which is to say more of what we have already been doing, which clearly has not changed the behavior of the regime in Tehran. It is time for the United States and our international partners to undertake what I would call nonincremental measures against the Iranian regime, and among those I would include tough sanctions on its central bank. It is also time for Congress to pass the new and tougher Iran sanctions legislation, which is in the Banking Committee and which over three-fourths of the Senate, in a very strong bipartisan statement, has cosponsored. There is no reason we cannot pass that bill before the end of this calendar year. Finally, it is time for the United States and our international partners to move beyond the formulation that has grown routine--and I am afraid ultimately hollow--which is that ``all options are on the table'' when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons development program and its terrorist actions. It is time for an unequivocal declaration--all the more so in response to the IAEA report today--that we will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, we and our international partners--by peaceful means, if we possibly can, but with military force if we absolutely must. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank our leader. Again, I have had many conversations about things political, which will not surprise anybody who is hearing me speak. But perhaps people will be surprised that Senator Reid and I have probably had as many conversations about matters spiritual and personal. Those conversations tie us together forever. It is my honor to welcome to the Senate Jonathan Sacks, the chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, and to thank our extraordinary Chaplain Barry Black for joining me in hosting the chief rabbi. The truth is that I knew Chief Rabbi Sacks from his writings before I knew him personally. He has written 24 books, the most recent of which was published earlier this year, called ``The Great Partnership, God, Science and the Search for Meaning.'' His writing is extremely insightful. It is broadly accessible. Perhaps paraphrasing the old commercial--and the occupant of the chair, being from New York, will remember this about Levy's Jewish Rye: ``You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's Jewish Rye.'' Well, you don't have to be Jewish to benefit from Rabbi Sack's writing. He is the sixth incumbent of the Chief Rabbi position in the United Kingdom, having served in that position since 1991. The role was formalized in 1845. He was knighted by Her Majesty the Queen in 2005, and then on the 27th of October, 2009, was made a life peer, taking his seat in the House of Lords, where he sits on the cross benches as Baron Sacks of Aldgate in the City of London. So we welcome Rabbi Sacks not just as the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom but as a member of a fellow legislative body. He has spoken with remarkable wisdom and insight and has formed my faith in so many ways. As I heard him give the opening prayer today, I could not help but think that he stands in a proud tradition that began with those remarkable Christian reformists who left England to come more than two or three centuries ago to our shores, forming the United States of America more than two centuries ago, and in our founding documents, responding to their faith, but also creating the foundation of the liberties that succeeding generations of Americans have enjoyed and that we in this Chamber work hard to protect and strengthen every day. Again, I thank the Chair and the leader. I particularly thank Chief Rabbi Sacks for honoring us with his presence and his words today.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today Senators Collins, Carper, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and I are introducing bipartisan, compromise legislation to rescue the United States Postal Service, USPS, from financial ruin and secure its commercial health into the future. Five years ago, Senators Collins and Carper led Congress in the adoption of postal reform legislation. The speed of the migration to internet communications, combined with the recent economic downturn, means we need to revisit the Postal Service's financial viability again. This year, Senator Brown and I joined Senators Collins and Carper in proposing the 21st Century Postal Service Act. The Postal Service needs a fundamental restructuring of the way it meets its obligations to the public, to its customers--including individual and business mailers--and to its employees. If our reform legislation is adopted, we are confident this time USPS, which was founded in the 18th century, will survive and flourish into the 21st. Too many people still rely on the Postal Service for us to sit back and allow its demise. Despite a 22 percent drop in mail volume in four years, the Postal Service will deliver 167 billion pieces this year. It is the second largest private sector employer in our country after Wal- Mart and has 557,000 career employees. It has 32 thousand post offices, which represents more domestic retail outlets than Wal-Mart, Starbucks and McDonalds combined. The financial health of the USPS has been deteriorating for years. But the rapid changeover to electronic communications and the recent economic downturn have swept it up into a financial death spiral. In this fiscal year, 2011, the Postal Service first projected a total loss of $8 billion. That was in July. By September, it revised its estimate and now says it will lose $10 billion. Unless major reform is adopted, the Postal Service will run out of money to deliver the mail sometime next summer. That is why we are introducing this comprehensive legislation to put a number of cost saving measures in place. Let me summarize just a few of the most important provisions. Of great interest to the American public will be our provision related to 5-day delivery. As you all know, the Postal Service has been pushing to reduce the number of days it delivers mail each week from six to five. USPS believes this will achieve $3 billion in savings. Communities across the country, however, are deeply concerned about what this would mean for people who rely on Saturday delivery for critical medications or newspapers. We are mindful of these concerns, so our legislation would bar the Postal Service from moving to 5-day delivery until two years after enactment of our bill and, in the meantime, reduce costs in other ways. The Government Accountability Office would have to verify that sufficient savings cannot be achieved without going to 5-day delivery. USPS also would have to identify customers and communities that might be disproportionately affected by 5-day delivery and develop remedies to address their concerns. Our bill also recognizes that the Postal Service must continue to decrease the number of its employees. Thus, we authorize USPS to offer buyouts to help it transition to a smaller workforce. To ensure the Postal Service can pay for these buyouts, we direct the Office of Personnel Management to refund to the Postal Service what everyone agrees has been an overpayment by USPS into the Federal Employees Retirement System. Using this money to support buyouts, the Postmaster General believes he may be able to reduce the Postal Service workforce by as many as 100,000 employees over the next three years and save $8 billion a year. To achieve healthcare savings, we would allow the Postal Service to work with its employee unions and the Office of Personnel Management to try to develop and agree on a new health plan for postal employees. The Postmaster General is confident that he and the postal unions can agree on an approach that could cut healthcare costs significantly, while retaining adequate benefits. Finally, our bill would help USPS get out from under the onerous weight of its current pre-funding requirements for its retiree health benefits by recalibrating the payments and amortizing them over time. This, too, will provide significant financial relief to the Postal Service. We know many of our proposals will be controversial. But without taking controversial steps, the Postal Service will not make it. We are pursuing broad changes rather than working around the edges to put the Postal Service back on the road to recovery. The Postmaster General has told us he needs to cut $20 billion from the USPS' annual budget, and we are giving him and his employees the tools to make that happen. The bottom line is we must act quickly to prevent a Postal Service collapse and we must act boldly to secure its future. The U.S. Postal Service is not an 18th Century relic. It is a great 21st Century national asset. But times are changing rapidly and so too must the Postal Service, if it is to survive. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed In the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today Senators Collins, Carper, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and I are introducing bipartisan, compromise legislation to rescue the United States Postal Service, USPS, from financial ruin and secure its commercial health into the future. Five years ago, Senators Collins and Carper led Congress in the adoption of postal reform legislation. The speed of the migration to internet communications, combined with the recent economic downturn, means we need to revisit the Postal Service's financial viability again. This year, Senator Brown and I joined Senators Collins and Carper in proposing the 21st Century Postal Service Act. The Postal Service needs a fundamental restructuring of the way it meets its obligations to the public, to its customers--including individual and business mailers--and to its employees. If our reform legislation is adopted, we are confident this time USPS, which was founded in the 18th century, will survive and flourish into the 21st. Too many people still rely on the Postal Service for us to sit back and allow its demise. Despite a 22 percent drop in mail volume in four years, the Postal Service will deliver 167 billion pieces this year. It is the second largest private sector employer in our country after Wal- Mart and has 557,000 career employees. It has 32 thousand post offices, which represents more domestic retail outlets than Wal-Mart, Starbucks and McDonalds combined. The financial health of the USPS has been deteriorating for years. But the rapid changeover to electronic communications and the recent economic downturn have swept it up into a financial death spiral. In this fiscal year, 2011, the Postal Service first projected a total loss of $8 billion. That was in July. By September, it revised its estimate and now says it will lose $10 billion. Unless major reform is adopted, the Postal Service will run out of money to deliver the mail sometime next summer. That is why we are introducing this comprehensive legislation to put a number of cost saving measures in place. Let me summarize just a few of the most important provisions. Of great interest to the American public will be our provision related to 5-day delivery. As you all know, the Postal Service has been pushing to reduce the number of days it delivers mail each week from six to five. USPS believes this will achieve $3 billion in savings. Communities across the country, however, are deeply concerned about what this would mean for people who rely on Saturday delivery for critical medications or newspapers. We are mindful of these concerns, so our legislation would bar the Postal Service from moving to 5-day delivery until two years after enactment of our bill and, in the meantime, reduce costs in other ways. The Government Accountability Office would have to verify that sufficient savings cannot be achieved without going to 5-day delivery. USPS also would have to identify customers and communities that might be disproportionately affected by 5-day delivery and develop remedies to address their concerns. Our bill also recognizes that the Postal Service must continue to decrease the number of its employees. Thus, we authorize USPS to offer buyouts to help it transition to a smaller workforce. To ensure the Postal Service can pay for these buyouts, we direct the Office of Personnel Management to refund to the Postal Service what everyone agrees has been an overpayment by USPS into the Federal Employees Retirement System. Using this money to support buyouts, the Postmaster General believes he may be able to reduce the Postal Service workforce by as many as 100,000 employees over the next three years and save $8 billion a year. To achieve healthcare savings, we would allow the Postal Service to work with its employee unions and the Office of Personnel Management to try to develop and agree on a new health plan for postal employees. The Postmaster General is confident that he and the postal unions can agree on an approach that could cut healthcare costs significantly, while retaining adequate benefits. Finally, our bill would help USPS get out from under the onerous weight of its current pre-funding requirements for its retiree health benefits by recalibrating the payments and amortizing them over time. This, too, will provide significant financial relief to the Postal Service. We know many of our proposals will be controversial. But without taking controversial steps, the Postal Service will not make it. We are pursuing broad changes rather than working around the edges to put the Postal Service back on the road to recovery. The Postmaster General has told us he needs to cut $20 billion from the USPS' annual budget, and we are giving him and his employees the tools to make that happen. The bottom line is we must act quickly to prevent a Postal Service collapse and we must act boldly to secure its future. The U.S. Postal Service is not an 18th Century relic. It is a great 21st Century national asset. But times are changing rapidly and so too must the Postal Service, if it is to survive. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed In the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to lend their swift support to the pending free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that have at last come before this Chamber. In approving these FTAs, we have an opportunity to show the American people that we in Congress are prepared to set aside partisan politics and come together to do something truly important to help our nation at a time when our economy is under unprecedented pressure. Simply put, free trade agreements like the ones before us today are not a choice for the United States--they are a necessity. As President Clinton used to point out, only 4 percent of the world's population lives in the United States, and there is only so much we can sell to each other. Creating new jobs and growing our economy requires tapping into the other 96 percent. And that requires breaking down trade barriers and lowering tariffs so that American goods can reach more consumers at a price they can afford. That is precisely what these three FTAs will accomplish. This legislation is a jobs bill that won't add a dime to the deficit. Instead, it will add $10 to $12 billion to our GDP, grow U.S. exports by $13 to $15 billion, and support an additional 100,000 American jobs. These FTAs are not only critical for our economic recovery, however. They are essential to our global leadership and our national security. In the case of the Korea-U.S. FTA, known as KORUS, the success or failure of this measure is inseparable from U.S. leadership in the Asia-Pacific region. The balance of power in Asia will determine the shape of the 21st century and whether it will be an American century or a Chinese century. Our friends and allies across this region are looking to Washington. In the face of a rising Beijing, they want to know if the U.S. is a country they can count on, or whether we are in retreat. From Japan to India to Australia, there is no test for American leadership today that is more urgent than approving our FTA with South Korea. That is because the competition for the future in the Asia-Pacific is as much about economic power as it is about military power. Since 2000, approximately 50 free trade agreements have been put in place in East Asia alone, with approximately 80 additional agreements currently under negotiation. The United States is party to just four FTAs in the Asia- Pacific region. Passing KORUS is the first step to righting this wrong and restoring a balance of economic power that favors America. Doing so will send an unequivocal message across the Asia-Pacific of American strength and commitment. It will also deepen one of our most important alliances in the world, with the Republic of Korea--a dynamic, free market democracy that has climbed from the depths of poverty and the devastation of war to become a model for the entire planet and a great global ally in the cause of freedom. The economic benefits of KORUS are also extraordinary. This FTA will increase exports of American goods to Korea by around $11 billion once the agreement is fully in effect, supporting as many as 70,000 additional jobs here in the United States. The agreement will also grant American firms greater access to Korea's $580 billion services market, creating new jobs for American workers in sectors from delivery and telecommunications services to energy and environmental services. While South Korea is on the cusp of becoming our third-largest free trade partner after Canada and Mexico, free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama also offer enormous opportunities for the United States and will open the way for tremendous growth here in our own hemisphere. Colombia is the oldest democracy in Latin America and one of America's most steadfast allies in that region. Like South Korea, Colombia is a great global success story--a country that has overcome narco-insurgency and terrorism, and a pro-American bulwark against Hugo Chavez's corrupt authoritarianism. By completing this FTA, the U.S. will strengthen not only our Colombian allies, but also our shared values of democracy, rule of law, and the free market across Latin America. The U.S.-Colombia FTA will also strengthen our own economy--expanding U.S. exports by more than $1.1 billion, increasing U.S. GDP by $2.5 billion, and creating thousands of U.S. jobs. Keep in mind, currently Colombia collects $100 in tariffs on U.S. exports for every $1 the United States levies on Colombian goods. With this FTA, that will end. Similarly, the U.S.-Panama FTA will eliminate tariffs and other barriers to U.S. exports, promote economic growth, and expand trade with one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America. American companies will be granted immediate access to Panama's $21 billion services market, including priority areas such as financial services and telecommunications. Panama's economy expanded 6.2 percent in 2010, with similar annual growth forecasts through 2015. All of this translates to more opportunities for American workers. Some have argued that free trade agreements threaten to increase our trade deficit. However, as the U.S. Department of Commerce recently pointed out, in recent years, U.S. manufacturers have run a $47 billion trade surplus with our FTA partners; by contrast, we have incurred a trade deficit of $823 billion with countries where no FTAs are in place. Time is of the essence. If we delay any further on these agreements, it will cost our country dearly in jobs and growth. The rest of the world is not standing still. The European Union finalized a free trade agreement with South Korea over the summer, and Canada implemented a free trade agreement with Colombia just weeks ago. If we do not act, jobs and market share that could have gone to U.S. companies will instead head to their competitors in Europe and Canada. That is why we must act now. In conclusion, let me underscore how important it is that these FTAs are the beginning, not the end, of a revived American global trade agenda. In order to get our economy back on track, in order to create the new jobs we need, in order to lead the world economically, the U.S. must have a forward-looking, optimistic trade liberalization vision. That is true not only in the Asia-Pacific and Latin America but also in the Middle East where millions of people who have long suffered and stagnated under thuggish dictators are at last grasping for greater political freedom and economic opportunity. More than foreign aid, countries like Tunisia and Egypt need the U.S. and Europe to lower trade barriers. That is why I believe so strongly that the U.S. should immediately begin negotiations for an FTA with Tunisia. Tunisia is a small country, but it is the place where the Arab Spring began and consequently critical to the future of Arab democracy. I strongly urge the Obama administration to begin negotiations on a free trade agreement with Tunisia as quickly as possible. The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for economic progress, prosperity, democracy and peace will be. Beginning today with the passage of these critical free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, we take another step towards restoring our economy and strengthening our global leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about two of the votes we will be casting at approximately 5:30 this afternoon, and to explain how I am going to vote and why. On the first, the legislation regarding China's currency policy, I am going to vote no, and I want to explain why. Managing our economic, military, and diplomatic relations with China is going to be one of the great challenges of this century. China is obviously a rising power today, though not one without problems, as I will get to in a moment. We have come to a point--China and the United States--where we not only interact and sometimes bump up against each other militarily, diplomatically, and economically, we also, in many ways, have become dependent on one another. What each of us does has an effect on the other, and often a significant effect. That is why I say one of the great challenges of this century will be to manage our relations with China in a way that is certainly beneficial and protective to the United States but, hopefully, to China, from its perspective, as well. I say this as background to what I want to say about China's currency policy. I am troubled by China's currency policy. China has obviously kept its currency too low. It is undervalued, and that has resulted in products being made in China selling elsewhere at a price that is lower than other manufacturers can compete with, including American manufacturers that are directly in conflict with China. So we are right to be upset about that policy. Our government has been expressing its frustration, its anger, to the Chinese Government. We have been negotiating, cajoling. I must say, in acknowledgment of reality, that the Chinese have slowly allowed their currency to rise approximately 30 percent in value over the last 6 years, but it should be allowed to rise more. On the other hand, I do want to say, in fairness, that China's currency policy does have effects that are not all bad for everybody in the United States. The fact its currency is undervalued means some of the products it brings into our country sell at a lower cost, and that is obviously particularly important to middle-income and lower income families who are out buying products that otherwise would cost more. So I understand this legislation to be an expression of anger at the Chinese Government and an attempt to pressure the Chinese Government to more rapidly allow its currency to rise. I would say, as I understand it, the legislation before us is intended as a warning shot across China's bow, as it were. But China may, from its perspective, see this as an attempt to make a direct attack, a direct hit on its bow, and it may be tempted to retaliate economically. And of course the worst result would be that we would end up in a mutually damaging trade war. In some sense, it is no surprise we are considering legislation such as this now--though I think at any time we would be concerned about China's currency policy--because throughout history, during times of economic recession, such as the one we are in now--a recession that we are fighting to come out of and another recession we worry we are about to go into--nations have repeatedly become protectionist in their economic and trade policies. But history also shows most of the time that protectionist policy makes the economic problems worse, not better. Today--and here I get back to what I said about China being a rising power but not one without problems--China's economy, in its way, is also fragile. It is dealing with a bubble in real estate values that is growing. As the papers today indicate, its banks are losing their credibility, inflation is rising, and unemployment is rising. So it would be foolish for China to get into a trade war with us in response to legislation such as this. China, in fact, may be more vulnerable in a trade war than we are. But China's vulnerability economically today carries great risk for the United States and the world. If a trade war sends China's economy into a recession or worse, the resultant economic instability would seriously hamper prospects for the global economic recovery that everybody hopes for, and of course it would greatly dampen our hopes for an American economic recovery and creation of more jobs here at home. Bottom line: I think the risks this proposal will aggravate the current global and American economic problems which concern us most are greater than the rewards of again trying to force China to allow its currency to rise more rapidly, and that is why I will vote against the China currency legislation when it comes before us later this afternoon. I also want to speak about the American Jobs Act, which will come before us for a cloture vote. We are, obviously, hearing of Americans-- related to what I have just talked about--going through what I think is the most difficult economic period in our history since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Unemployment hovers at around 9 percent, which translates into millions and millions of people out of work, and millions more who are worried they are going to be next to lose their jobs. Confidence in our future among the American people, among critical decisionmakers and businesses, is at a real low. Confidence in our national government is low and falling. Anger at our rising national debt is high and rising. The American people are demanding we do something, particularly to protect the jobs they have and create new jobs if they have already lost them. It is in that context the President proposed the American Jobs Act--a series of interesting ideas aimed at creating jobs that will cost almost $\1/2\ trillion. So what am I going to do on this one? On this one, I am going to vote against the filibuster of the American Jobs Act, because I believe our country and our constituents need and deserve a debate here in the Senate on what each of us, all of us, think we should do to get our economy moving again. It should be an open debate, without an effective limit on amendments, with many ideas being offered as to what we should do, and hopefully that will lead us to some consensus. So I am going to vote against filibuster in the hope we will bring about such a debate. But I must say, if cloture is granted and the filibuster is ended, I will seek to amend the American Jobs Act down to a very few of its constituent parts that I think are worth their cost. If a vote were called on the American Jobs Act as it is now--in other words, if the tree were filled and that is what happened--I would vote against the American Jobs Act, and I want to explain why. The bottom line here is I don't believe the potential in this act for creating jobs justifies adding another $\1/2\ trillion to our almost $15 trillion national debt. In fact, I think the most important thing we can do to improve our economy, reduce unemployment, and create jobs is to bring our national debt under control. The best way to do that is to adopt a tough, comprehensive, balanced debt reduction plan, such as the one recommended by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission. The Budget Control Act, which we adopted over the summer to deal with the debt ceiling, created a so-called supercommittee, the Joint Special Committee, and that committee of 12 now gives us another chance to deal with our debt in a constructive and bipartisan way. We all know it is not going to be easy, but the American Jobs Act would make the task of the Joint Special Committee even more difficult because it spends almost $\1/2\ trillion we don't have, $\1/2\ trillion the act now proposes to raise with a surtax on people making more than $1 million a year. I don't have any objection to a tax increase of that kind. But if we use it for the American Jobs Act, it is not going to be there to be used by the Joint Special Committee as part of an overall bipartisan debt reduction plan. We desperately need to have some sources of revenue, along with spending cuts, to adopt the kinds of reductions in our debt that the country's future urgently needs. Let me come back to what I said a moment ago and try to explain briefly why I believe these two great problems we have, our limping economy, our persistent level of high unemployment and our national debt, come together and, more explicitly, why I believe that reducing our debt is actually the best thing we can do to create jobs. The jobs we need are going to come from the private sector. Government in our system economically never has created the jobs itself. It shouldn't. It can't, anymore, because we don't have the money to do so. The jobs always will come where most people have been employed in our country, and that is in the private sector. If you chart corporate investment on the same graph as job creation, you will see the two lines follow each other almost exactly. This is a chart prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Federal Government. Over the last 50 years, beginning in 1961 and going to 2011, it charts two things. The gray line is investment in real equipment and software spending, and the purple line is private employment numbers. When I saw this, I thought it was a stunning chart and very compelling, because you can see that corporate and private business investment is almost exactly along the same line. There is a little bit of a digression here because jobs fell more than investment, but investment was falling and jobs fell at the same time for 50 years. I think the single most significant predictor of job growth in our country is business investment. So we have to ask ourselves, how could we stimulate that kind of business investment today. Because that is what we need, we need these jobs. I regret to say I don't believe we can do it with the mix that is in the American Jobs Act. It seems to me like a kind of ministimulus. The stimulus of $800 billion that was adopted a few years ago, which I supported, I think made the economy better than it otherwise would have been, but it didn't give the economy what the President said he hoped and we all hoped it would give, which was a jolt. This American Jobs Act, which is kind of a ministimulus that will cost $\1/2\ trillion, is less likely, for obvious mathematical reasons, to give the economy the jolt. But it will cost $\1/2\ trillion we won't have and will have to find somewhere to raise. To me, what we have got to do is restore confidence in people in the business sector to invest. That is what is missing today in our economy. They don't have confidence in our economic future. They don't have confidence in our government--us. They don't have confidence that we will work together to reduce our debt, to create some predictability for them in the years ahead. That is why I say the best thing we can do to restore the confidence of the business community necessary for them to begin investing again-- they have got the money; they are just not spending it because they are nervous about the future--is for us to come together, hopefully led by the Joint Special Committee, in a bipartisan debt reduction program. It is not this American Jobs Act. I know it has been put forward with good intentions, but I don't think it does the job we need it to do for America, and I know it will cost another $\1/2\ trillion we desperately need to reduce our debt which will do the job we need it to do to create new jobs for our fellow Americans. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to draw the attention of my colleagues to the approach of a very special day in the history of our friend and partner, the Republic of China--ROC--on Taiwan. On October 10, 1911--precisely 100 years ago--the Republic of China was founded, and since then has celebrated October 10 as its National Day. Over the course of this century, the Republic of China has been a firm friend of the United States--from World War II to the Cold War, up to the present day. More recently, the ROC on Taiwan has emerged as one of the great success stories of the past century--a free market democracy that is a model for the entire region. I believe that it is especially appropriate to note this anniversary on the Senate floor because of the unique and important role that the U.S. Congress has played in supporting the U.S.-Taiwan relationship, by virtue of the Taiwan Relations Act. Unique among all of our international partnerships, the TRA established in law America's commitment to support the people of Taiwan as they seek a safe and secure place in the world. I am grateful for the opportunity to wish the people of Taiwan my congratulations on this auspicious anniversary, and hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating a very special National Day.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in urging the Senate to adopt this resolution and replenish the disaster relief fund without further delay. To so many people struck by disaster this year, this fund is a life preserver to help carry them over until they can get back on their feet and begin the long, hard road to recovery. Without assistance from this fund, many disaster survivors would have no place to live due to damaged and exposed homes; critical commuting routes would remain impassable; and debris would mar communities and morale for months on end. We are not just talking about a few disaster areas. This year seems like a record for major disasters, affecting all parts of our country. Nearly every State has sought and received assistance, which is why the fund is now perilously low. It has dwindled to about $377 million. At this rate, Senate appropriators say the fund may last for just days. As I speak, wildfires are still blazing through drought stricken central Texas. The worst wildfire in Texas history closed area schools down last week, 1,500 homes were destroyed in hundreds of fires, and tens of thousands of acres have been scorched. My home State of Connecticut was among those affected when Hurricane Irene swept ashore at the end of August, bringing gale force winds and tidal surges that knocked out power for days in many areas, damaged millions of dollars worth of property, and left whole communities under water. And when Irene struck, it didn't just touch down in one State or two. It sideswiped practically the entire eastern seaboard from North Carolina to Maine. In Connecticut alone, the early preliminary and therefore probably low estimates of damage from this single disaster are around $300 million. These major calamities only take us back to the last week of August. In June and July, record flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers displaced thousands of people and ravaged land throughout the West and Midwest. A string of tornadoes ripped through the Southeast and Midwest in April, killing hundreds of people, destroying countless homes and businesses and costing billions of dollars. A third of Joplin, MO, was wiped out, and that community continues to struggle to rebuild. In February, the Midwest and Northeast were buried under 2 feet of snow. That is not an exhaustive list, but the point is that these disasters have been equal opportunity ravagers, affecting almost every State in the Union this year. In fact, the President has declared this year a state of emergency in 47 States! Only Nevada, West Virginia, and Michigan have been spared. So the replenishment of the disaster relief fund should not divide us along partisan lines. Nor should it divide us among geographic lines, or city versus rural lines. This fund has been tapped by almost every one of our States, and I know that the people of Connecticut were relieved when they learned that the Federal Government would help them get their lives back on track. I suspect the citizens of every other State that received disaster relief funds were similarly grateful. Frankly, it doesn't really matter if 2 States or 47 States have been declared disaster areas. Helping people in need is what our Government does. The whole point of a federal government is to handle challenges that individual States, much less individual communities, cannot. The defense of our Nation is first and foremost among these Federal responsibilities, but so is providing aid to people and States following a natural or man-made disaster that takes as heavy a toll as this year's disasters have. Congress has a long history of supplementing the disaster relief fund to cover those in need. From 2003 to 2010, $12.3 billion was appropriated through the regular appropriations process. But six times that much--$73.4 billion--was appropriated through supplemental funding. It should be noted that only a small part of the administration's request seeks supplemental funding. The bulk of the request is for fiscal year 2012, and the aid requested constitutes disaster relief within the meaning of the Budget Control Act, which allows discretionary spending levels to be raised up to a certain limit--a limit that is not breached by the administration's request. Already FEMA has had to start prioritizing its relief activities so that those in most immediate need can be assisted. In other words, longer term recovery projects not yet in the FEMA pipeline have been put on hold. That is how low the reserves are in the disaster recovery fund. Current and future survivors will continue to receive assistance to help replace or repair damages to property or cover other personal losses. States will also continue to receive reimbursement for debris removal, emergency response and protective measures, and other critical needs. But FEMA has essentially had to begin rationing aid. That is just plain wrong. The people who suffer in one disaster are no more or less entitled to aid than those who suffer in another disaster. We are a humane country, not a selectively humane country. As I said when I toured flooded homes on the Connecticut shore 2 weeks ago, the Federal Government does not default on its obligations-- whether we are talking about debts to foreign nations or promised aid to its own citizens in need, through no fault of their own. I have faith my colleagues will come together across party lines, as we have done so many times in the past, to replenish FEMA's disaster relief fund, which was designed to help make people whole again after major disasters.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my friend and colleague, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, on the outstanding speech he delivered yesterday at the Jesse Helms Center in Wingate, NC. I share Senator Rubio's conviction that America is at our best in the world when we put our values at the center of our foreign policy, beginning with a commitment to the cause of freedom. Senator Rubio's thoughtful warning against the danger of withdrawing behind our borders is especially timely and important. He is absolutely right that, when we do not confront monsters like al-Qaida abroad, they will sooner or later come to threaten us here at home. I thank Senator Rubio for delivering such a lucid and visionary speech. His remarks reaffirm for me the critical leadership role that I am convinced he will play in this chamber, and in our country, in the years to come. His voice is an important one. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Senator Rubio's remarks as prepared for delivery.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the memory of Elmer B. Staats, one of the great civil servants of the post-World War II era. A former Comptroller General of the United States and head of the General Accounting Office, as GAO was then called, Mr. Staats died July 23 in Washington at the age of 97. Elmer Staats had the distinction of serving under every U.S. President from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan. But more important than the longevity of his career was his record of professional achievement. A leading figure in the world of public administration and government accountability, Elmer Staats was renowned for his dedication to constructive change and good government principles. Appointed Comptroller General in 1966, Elmer Staats helped lay the foundation for the modern-day GAO. He transformed it from an agency primarily known for financial audit work to one that evaluates the effectiveness of virtually every Federal activity at home and abroad, from antipoverty programs to military spending to investments in infrastructure. At the start of Staats' tenure at GAO, accountants comprised more than 95 percent of the agency's professional staff. By the time he retired in 1981, the agency's workforce included such diverse professionals as economists, social scientists, attorneys, and computer experts--all career employees hired on the basis of their knowledge, skills, and ability. Under Elmer Staats, GAO took a lead role in issuing auditing guidance. In 1972, the Comptroller General issued the first edition of what has come to be known as the ``Yellow Book''--the final word on government auditing standards. He also directed GAO to issue guidance to help state and local auditors and was instrumental in establishing intergovernmental audit forums in the 1970s. In addition, Elmer Staats sought to strengthen ties with the international auditing community through his active involvement and leadership in the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions. He founded GAO's International Auditor Fellowship Program in 1979, which enables auditors from other countries to meet with GAO staff and acquire new knowledge and perspectives. His is a living legacy that is still delivering results, both for Congress and the American people. Just name a Federal program or policy, GAO has probably reviewed it and made suggestions for improvement. Last year, measurable financial benefits from GAO work totaled nearly $50 billion, an $87 return on every dollar invested in GAO. Elmer Boyd Staats was born in Richfield, KS, in 1914. His family were wheat farmers. The only one of his eight siblings to attend college, Elmer Staats graduated Phi Beta Kappa from McPherson College in 1935, and later earned a master's degree in political science and economics from the University of Kansas and a doctorate in political economy at the University of Minnesota, where he wrote his dissertation on the new Social Security Administration. Elmer Staats' career in the Federal Government began in 1939, when he joined the Bureau of the Budget, now the Office of Management and Budget. His talents were recognized early on, and he served in high- level posts at the Bureau under Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. Eventually, he became the Bureau's Deputy Director before President Johnson appointed him to a 15-year term as the fifth Comptroller General of the United States. He held that post through the administrations of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and into the early months of the Reagan administration. After leaving GAO, Elmer Staats became the president and later chairman of the board of trustees of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation. He was a member of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board from 1984 to 1990. During the 1990s, he served as the first chairman of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. Elmer Staats helped found the American Society for Public Administration in 1939 and later served as its national president and vice president. He was also a founding member in 1967 of the National Academy of Public Administration and remained a trusted advisor on many Academy projects over the years. He received numerous awards for distinguished public service, along with honorary degrees from eight universities. He was elected to the Accounting Hall of Fame in 1981. When asked whether he was a Republican or a Democrat, Elmer always politely but firmly declined to answer. In fact, he was famous for having a needlepoint pillow in his office that featured an elephant on one side and a donkey on the other. The message about his and GAO's nonpartisan role in government was clear. As Bob Schieffer observed in a recent commentary on ``Face the Nation,'' Elmer Staats' reputation in Washington was such that you ``knew you could take what his agency reported to the bank--its facts were seldom disputed, its neutrality never challenged, his political affiliation never known.'' I want to express my gratitude for Elmer Staat's many years of exemplary service to our Nation. His intelligence, dedication, and integrity will be missed. At the same time, Elmer Staats set an example for the type of men and women who will be needed to help lead our government in the future--individuals of outstanding ability, sound character, and a genuine commitment to the greater good. My thoughts and prayers go to his three children--David Staats, Deborah Sanders, and Catharine Taubman--and to his three grandchildren and great-granddaughter.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the attacks of September 11, 2001, certainly had a profound impact on all Americans. In addition to the sadness, anger, fear, and, ultimately, resolve, we all felt in the aftermath of the attacks, many were also infused with a renewed sense of patriotism and fellowship that inspired them to engage in public and community service. As we approach the tenth anniversary of this terrible tragedy, I would like to honor one individual who answered the call to service, and who has done so much to help victims of the attack, Debra Brown Steinberg. Debra was in New York City on September 11, and from her apartment she could see the smoke pouring out from the World Trade Center. As she desperately waited for news about her stepson, she made an agreement with God: if her stepson would come home safely, she would work to help the victims of the attack. Thankfully, her stepson did come home safely, and Debra has more than fulfilled her promise. Utilizing her sharp legal acumen and more than 30 years of professional experience, Debra has become a passionate advocate for the families of those who perished in the 9/11 attacks. A partner in the respected New York firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, Debra was integral in putting together a consortium of law firms that have worked together to deliver pro bono services to 9/11 families. Early on, Debra realized that, if her firm was going to give victims the assistance they truly needed, they would have to do more than simply offer free legal advice. Under her direction, the consortium has taken a holistic approach toward assisting the families; not just offering counsel, but also seeking to ensure they receive the services they need, and lobbying lawmakers and regulators to ensure that all victims have access to the Victim Compensation Fund. Debra has also represented many victims' families, pro bono, before the fund to ensure that they are fairly compensated. Perhaps Debra's most amazing work has been her advocacy on behalf of some of the most vulnerable victims of the attacks: immigrants who were in the country illegally when their relatives were killed during the attacks on the World Trade Center. These individuals, as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has put it, ``share with all Americans a moment of loss and pain and pride that is now a defining part of our national history.'' However, because of their status, they were forced to cope with their pain and sadness in isolation, afraid to seek assistance or to offer their help for fear of being found out. Our Nation cannot help but feel a deep connection and commitment to this group. Debra has worked tirelessly to assure that we live up to this commitment and to enable these victims to participate in rebuilding after the attacks. With her guidance, 11 of these spouses and children of innocent victims of the attacks have provided assistance to the Federal Government in its 9/11 related investigations and prosecutions. Debra also successfully represented these families before the Victim Compensation Fund to ensure that they received equal consideration. Finally, she has fought doggedly to ensure that these families can continue to work and live in the United States. Due in great part to her work, these family members have so far been able to stay in the United States and their cases are now being considered for a temporary visa that would allow them to live and work legally in the United States. Let us all hope that DHS is able to quickly conduct its review so that these families can leave the shadows and rebuild their lives. Over the years, my office has had the privilege of assisting Debra in her efforts, and I have witnessed firsthand her dedication to assisting the families of 9/11 victims. Those she has represented are certainly lucky to have had her on their side. Given all that Debra has done, it's no wonder that the American Bar Association honored her with the prestigious Pro Bono Publico award in 2006. She has also received the 9/11 Tribute Center Award in 2009 and the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in 2007. Her work has also been recognized several times by my colleagues here in the Senate, as well as in the U.S. House of Representatives and the New York State Legislature. Mr. President, I commend Debra Brown Steinberg for her commitment to assisting families of 9/11 victims. Her efforts truly personify the American values of fairness and patriotism. The U.S. Senate, and the American People, owe her our sincerest gratitude. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on August 8, 2011, in the small town of Dharamsala in northern India, a modest ceremony was held to inaugurate the new Prime Minister of the Central Tibetan Administration. The new Prime Minister's name is Dr. Lobsang Sangay, and I had the opportunity, together with some of my distinguished colleagues, to meet him last month. Dr. Sangay assumes office at an important moment in Tibetan history. Indeed, his election marks a significant milestone in the advancement of Tibetan democracy, as His Holiness the Dalai Lama earlier this year announced his decision to devolve fully his political authority to the elected leadership, now led by Dr. Sangay. At a time when dictators in many parts of the world have proven themselves willing to slaughter their own people rather than cede an iota of power, the decision of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to surrender his political authority in favor of democracy is both inspiring and significant. It was also a wise decision that will strengthen the legitimacy of the Tibetan cause among the international community and sustain it for decades to come. The election that brought Dr. Sangay to power involved voting by tens of thousands of Tibetans living in exile in over 30 countries, from Belgium to Bhutan. In my home State of Connecticut, nearly 100 Tibetan Americans took part in this election. Dr. Sangay, a 43-year-old academic who holds a doctorate from Harvard Law School, was elected Prime Minister with 55 percent of the vote. Now the executive authority of the Central Tibetan Authority rests solely on his shoulders. I came away from my conversation with Dr. Sangay deeply impressed. He is a young man of considerable intellect and accomplishment, and I am certain that he will prove to be a leader of courage and conviction. The Tibetan people have chosen wisely in electing him as their Prime Minister. During our meeting, Dr. Sangay affirmed his commitment to the Dalai Lama's ``Middle Way Approach,'' which seeks genuine autonomy for Tibet, not independence, and I was encouraged by his determination to meet the challenge of finding a solution for the Tibet issue. Unfortunately, the situation for the 6 million Tibetans living under Chinese rule today remains deeply troubling. This is a community that has never been permitted to participate in a free and fair election of the sort that just took place among Tibetans in exile. In fact, this is a community that is governed by authorities who have deemed that carrying a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or a simple photograph of his Holiness the Dalai Lama to be illegal and punishable acts. It is a community that has faced brutal repression and violence and that has, for decades, been denied their fundamental rights, including the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association. I hope that the self-fulfillment of democratic governance exercised by Tibetan refugees can provide hope and inspiration to those in Tibet and China who yearn for the fundamental freedom to choose their own government and leaders. While the U.S. government does not officially recognize the Central Tibetan Administration, we do work with them though a variety of programs to help Tibetan refugees. As the United States continues its outreach to civil society and nongovernmental groups, and its promotion of democracy around the world, I hope we should enhance our engagement with the Central Tibetan Administration and Dr. Sangay. Moreover, when Lobsang Sangay returns to Washington this fall, I hope many doors will be open to him. What the Dalai Lama and his fellow Tibetan refugees have accomplished is worthy and deserving of our attention and respect.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank my friend from South Carolina for his generous words. Obviously, what turned the tide in Iraq was a vision, a commanding vision by General Petraeus about what had to happen to succeed with a new counterterrorism strategy and tremendous support from the men and women of the American military, a generation that volunteered, that stepped up to the call, that rightfully should be called America's ``new greatest generation.'' They are an inspiration to us. Of course, we lost a lot of them there. The Iraqi military fought hard and now, increasingly, has shown its capability to defend its own nation, which is what we had hoped and prayed and fought for. So my friends from Arizona and South Carolina had the same reaction I did yesterday. We began to talk to each other by the end of the day as we came back to Washington, to what was originally a FOX News story, that the decision had been made in the administration to go down to 3,000 troops. We reacted that way because it was lower than any number we had ever heard from anybody we had confidence in about what was necessary to secure all that we have gained and all the Iraqis have gained. The papers today report it as a fact. Secretary Panetta says no decision has been made. I hope not because in these matters--I understand there is politics in Iraq as well as here, but what has to be put at the top of the list is what is best for our national security and, of course, for the Iraqis, what is best for their national security. To me, if the number is right, and it is only going to be 3,000 more there after the end of this year, I don't see how we can feel confident that we can protect what we have spent a lot of American lives--a lot of Iraqi lives, a lot of our national treasure and theirs--securing. And I don't see how we can help to avoid a kind of possible return to civil war, particularly on the fault lines my friends have mentioned, between the Kurdish areas and the Arab areas. This is a decision ultimately for the President. I want to say this about doing the right thing: The President, obviously, took a position for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq during the campaign of 2008. I think there were a lot of his supporters who felt, who hoped, who dreamed that pretty much the day--we are hearing a lot about day one these days, a lot about day one after the next election. But I think a lot of President Obama's supporters expected that on day one of his administration he would begin a full withdrawal from Iraq. To his great, great credit, he did not do that because I think he understood he had a goal, which was to pull our troops out of Iraq but that America had an interest and he as President had to protect that interest in not losing in Iraq, not letting it fall apart, and not letting us suffer the loss we would to our credibility and strength around the world. My friends and I traveled a lot together. We have been in places far away from Iraq--Asia, for instance--where, when it was uncertain about whether we were going to stick to it in Iraq we heard real concern from our allies in Asia. They said: You know, Iraq is far from here, but we depend on American strength and credibility for our security and freedom in Asia, in the Asia-Pacific region. If you are seen to be weak and lame and not up to the fight in Iraq, it is going to compromise our freedom. The President, to his credit, understood all that and put us on a slow path to withdrawal. But I don't think anybody would fault the President if we--and I think the expectation has been that we have achieved so much that we could--leave a core group there to continue to train the Iraqi military so they reach their full potential, to be there to assist them in a counterterrorism fight because that is essentially what is going on in Iraq now. The war is basically over, but the extremists, the Shia militia, some remnants of al-Qaida, are carrying out terrorist attacks. Those are the explosive--literally explosive--high-visibility attacks. We have special capacities in the U.S. military to work with the Iraqi military to prevent and counter those terrorist attacks. Then the final part of the mission has to be to protect the American personnel there, civilian personnel. I don't know what that number will be. At one point--we already have the largest----

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend. At one point somebody indicated to us--we were in Baghdad--that the American Embassy, which is already the largest U.S. Embassy in the world in terms of personnel, could go up as high as 20,000. It could be that high. Those are a lot of civilians committed to working in the country that we need to have forces there to protect. We are all coming to the floor today to appeal to Secretary Panetta, to the President: It would be shortsighted. If it is really going to be 3,000 and only 3,000, and, frankly, we are not going to tuck some away in those civilian personnel numbers in the embassy or somewhere else, covert operators--if it is really only 3,000, they are not going to be able to do the job that needs to be done. Not only that, they are going to send a message of weakness, lack of resolve, anxiousness to get out to the Iraqis' enemies and ours in the region, and that particularly includes Iran. I join my colleagues. We have been together on this for a long time. I don't want us to squander what we have won, and we will, I am afraid, if we only leave 3,000 American troops there.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to say in response to something Senator McCain said, somebody in the military said to me: If we are not going to leave enough to do the job, we might as well not leave anybody there. Of course, we don't want that to happen. There are a couple of alternatives here. One is that the 3,000 is not the number. Hopefully we will have clarification. It is more than that. In all our trips to Iraq, talking about repeated teams of leadership, never has there been anyone who said to us that we needed less than 10,000 American troops there to do this job. I want to repeat this; there is a kind of sleight of hand here. Maybe it is 3,000 here and a few more thousand tucked into the civilian workforce at the embassy and a few more somewhere in the special covert operators. If that is the game plan here, it is a mistake. We ought to see exactly how many troops are leaving there. It gives confidence to our allies in the region, particularly in Iraq, and it will unsettle our enemies, particularly in Iran. Dr. Ken Pollack has a piece in the National Interest that is out now about this situation. He is concerned about the small number of troops that may be left there and agrees that there may be some Iraqis who might be pushing for a smaller post-2011 force with a more limited set of missions. Dr. Pollack says: That would be a bad deal for the Iraqi people and for the United States. Our troops would be reduced to spectators as various Iraqi groups employ violence against one another. Moreover, if we have troops in Iraq but do nothing to stop bloodshed there, it would be seen as proof of Washington's complicity. If American forces cannot enforce the rules of the game, they should not be in Iraq, period, lest they be portrayed as contributing to the destruction of the country. That is what we are saying. The final point here is Dr. Pollack argues in this piece that the United States, if this is in response--giving the benefit of the doubt for a moment--to Iraqi political concerns, that the U.S. has the leverage to avoid this dangerous outcome. He writes: America has the goods to bargain. The question is whether Washington will. That is the question I believe my colleagues from Arizona and South Carolina are asking today: Will we bargain with our Iraqi allies that this is the problem to be able to work with them for another chapter to secure all we have gained together up until now?

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Senator Mark Hatfield--a lifelong Oregonian, a genuine statesman, and a dedicated public servant. With a career in government that spanned nearly five decades, Mark leaves behind a legacy of service and a model of civility in American political life. From the shores of Iwo Jima, to the halls of the statehouse in Salem, Oregon, and the Chamber of the U.S. Senate, Mark dedicated his life to our country. He served courageously as a naval officer in the Second World War in the Pacific theater. He was a notable lawmaker in the Oregon State Legislature, championing civil rights legislation in the 1950s well before the Federal Government's landmark efforts in that area. He also served as Oregon's secretary of state, and for two terms, he was a successful Governor. He went on to serve the people of Oregon as a U.S. Senator for three decades. I knew Mark to be a man of decency, always civil in the way he conducted his business, and I believe that was his signature strength as a legislator. While Mark and I did not always agree, he was never disagreeable. He was principled and passionate about the things he believed to be true, but he was also respectful of those with whom he disagreed. His demeanor won him many friends and built many fruitful relationships on both sides of the aisle, making him a most effective legislator. Upon retiring from the Senate in 1996, Mark reflected upon the nature of our country's politics, saying, ``I'm going to miss the people, but not the process.'' He had grown disenchanted with the coarse partisanship that had warped the political process, and he knew that if we were to keep moving forward as a country, the vital center would have to hold, civility would have to prevail, and bipartisanship would have to return. Solutions do not come from gridlock. Bipartisanship has to win the day. Since Mark retired from the Senate, our politics have become even more tribal. But I believe it would serve us all well, as we honor his life, to reflect upon the example he set--that disagreements do not have to become roadblocks but instead can be opportunities for innovative compromise. I learned a great deal from Mark Hatfield during our time in the Senate together, and I am grateful for this opportunity to honor Mark's memory.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my support for the measure before us, as my colleague from Missouri who has just spoken, and as everyone else I have heard express their support for this proposal. No one seems perfectly satisfied with it, but that is inevitable. I think we have come to one of those classic moments of a very big challenge our Nation faces--this enormous debt--and whether in this agreement we see this glass half full or the glass half empty and whether what encourages us in the agreement outweighs what disappoints us. For me, the positive outweighs the negative. I am going to vote for my hopes about what this agreement means as opposed to my fears that we are not doing enough in this agreement. What makes me most happy about it is this is a bipartisan compromise that turns the corner, turns the ship of America's state away from greater and greater deficits and a greater national debt and in the direction of balancing our budget once more. It turns us in the direction of reestablishing classic American values of discipline and thrift and concern about our future and investment in our future, which we have lost in our Federal Government through the work of both parties in the executive and legislative branches of our government. It is a bipartisan agreement at a time when this Chamber and this city have become reflexively and destructively partisan, and that is encouraging to me, that it is bipartisan. It is a compromise at a time when this city has become ideologically rigid, and it is clear, if we look at our history, that we only make progress when we compromise. That is because we are such a big, diverse country with so many different opinions and points of view. So this is a bipartisan compromise. It is the beginning of a long, hard march back to fiscal responsibility in our country--back to a balanced budget. So what troubles me about it? What troubles me about it is that the bipartisan compromise also represents a kind of bipartisan agreement by each party to yield to the other party's most politically and ideologically sensitive priority. In the case of Democrats, it is to protect entitlement spending, and in the case of Republicans it is to not raise taxes. The reality is that we have to do some of both if we are going to get our country back into balance. Because this agreement doesn't really touch the entitlement programs--particularly Medicare, which is growing faster, bigger than any other government program--it puts all the burden of getting back toward balance in our budget on the so-called discretionary spending part of the budget. That is about one-third of Federal spending. About 60 percent is the entitlement or mandatory programs. So we have the beginning of a system that forces cuts in the discretionary third of the budget--defense and nondefense--which they have to do, they have to cut--but it doesn't ask much of anything of the 60 percent that is growing so rapidly, which is entitlement spending. As a result, if the special committee created in this agreement-- which is the great hope of the agreement, I think--doesn't work its will and involve itself in entitlement reform and tax reform, and Congress doesn't accept it, then the trigger, the automatic spending cuts are also all from discretionary spending, asking that one-third of the budget to pay the way, even though it is a small part of the responsibility for the increase in government spending. That would have a devastating effect on our national security because it would dramatically undercut our defense, as well as some of the programs that are the great investment programs of our future: education, energy, et cetera, et cetera. So I hope the special committee will redeem our hopes and Congress will too by dealing with entitlement reform. I wish to say here that Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and I, in June, introduced a proposal that would take steps to save Medicare for the almost 70 million people who will be on Medicare in a decade and reduce the enormous costs it places on our taxpayers. I think a lot of people in our country think the payroll deductions and the premiums they pay, pay the total benefits of Medicare. Unfortunately, that is not so. The average Medicare beneficiary in their lifetime takes $3 or $4 out of the system for every $1 they put in, and we just can't run a program long term like that. Who picks up the rest? The taxpayers, the budget. That is a big part of why we are heading into deficit. So we can't save Medicare by leaving it as it is. We can only save Medicare-- and I want to save Medicare because I believe in the program--if we change it. Senator Coburn and I put forward this plan that will save over $600 billion in Medicare costs over the next decade. It will extend the solvency of Medicare by at least 30 years and reduce Medicare's 75-year unfunded liabilities by $10 trillion. Now, I know our plan contains some strong medicine, but that is what it will take to keep Medicare alive, and we believe our plan administers this medicine in a fair way. Senator Coburn and I are going to forward our proposal, which is in legislative form, to the joint select committee for their consideration, and we hope they will include parts of it in their recommended legislation. I also believe it is essential for the joint committee to act to bolster the solvency of Social Security. Many think Social Security is not contributing to the deficit because it has a positive balance in the Social Security trust fund. But what is in that trust fund? It is notes that the United States Government has given to the Social Security trust fund every time we have borrowed from it. Of course, we are bound to pay that money back. The fact is, today Social Security is running a deficit on a cashflow basis. In other words, the payments into the system are not as great as the payments out, and they will continue to do that in increasing numbers for the foreseeable future. What does that mean? It means the Social Security trust fund has to come to the Federal Government to redeem the bonds the government gave Social Security when it borrowed the money. How does our government pay back the Social Security trust fund? By borrowing over the next two decades $2.6 trillion, currently held in IOUs, plus interest. If we don't do something to save Social Security, when we hit the year of 2036, Social Security will only be able to pay benefits to the extent that they are covered by incoming receipts, and that will mean a sudden, shocking, painful 23-percent cut in benefits for senior citizens. We have to begin to enact reforms now to slowly save Social Security, and we can do it. I wish to indicate today to my colleagues that Senator Coburn and I are working again on a bipartisan proposal to secure Social Security for America's seniors for the long term, and we hope to have that done in time to also forward to the special committee for their consideration. So the bottom line: We can't protect these entitlements as well as have the national defense we need to protect us in a dangerous world while we are at war against Islamic extremists who attacked us on 9/11, and will be for a long time to come. We can't not touch the entitlements or raise taxes and create a tax reform proposal and expect to protect all the programs of investment in our future that mean so much to America's families: education particularly, alternative energy, investments in our transportation system. To be able to do all that in the right way, we need this special committee and Congress to take the next steps. But this is a significant beginning, as imperfect as it is. If I may, finally, for all of us--and particularly for the President, the Speaker, the majority leader, the Republican leader in the House, and the Democratic leader in the Senate, and everybody who worked so hard, coming close to the kind of grand bargain I think we needed, that the Simpson-Bowles Commission adopted, that the Gang of 6, our 6 colleagues, recommended to us, which I support, and that the President and the Speaker, President Obama and Speaker Boehner, were close to but unfortunately fell apart--there is disappointment that a lot of us feel. But perhaps to put it in a broader context, I wish to quote from an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal today written by David Rivkin and Lee Casey, who are two lawyers whose work I have long admired. Here is what they say to take us back and perhaps remind us that we fill these seats for a short period of time. We act within the system created by our Framers, and we do our best. They wrote: The debt-ceiling crisis has prompted predictable media laments about how partisan and dysfunctional our political system has become. But if the process leading to the current deal was a ``spectacle'' and a ``three-ring circus,'' As someone put it-- the show's impresarios are none other than James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Our messy political system is working exactly the way our Founders intended it to. Then I go toward the end of their op-ed piece: The key point has been made-- Excuse me. Let me start a paragraph ahead: Rarely in our system do the participants-- Whether in the White House, Senate, or House-- achieve all or even most of their goals in a single political battle. . . . The key point has been made. Few now suggest that we can continue on our current spending binge. That is the beginning of a consensus, and a good start towards genuine change. The Framers would be pleased at the spectacle. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the proposed debt crisis agreement. The first thing I would like to do is express my appreciation--I think I would actually say empathy to the President, the Vice President, and the bipartisan leadership of both Houses of Congress who have had to deal with this enormously significant and difficult problem for our Federal Government because the obvious fact is we have worked our way into a very deep hole of debt. When I say ``we,'' I mean we, all of us--succeeding Presidents of different parties, Members of both parties in both Houses of Congress. There is a tendency, when you have a problem such as this, to want to point and blame everybody else. The truth is, we are all responsible, and we are only going to get out of this hole and get the American government and the American people out of this hole if we work together to solve the problems, just as we have together caused these problems. I saw some numbers recently--I think I have them right; I know I have them almost right--that express very simply what happened over the last decade. In fiscal year 2001, the last year of the Clinton administration, the Federal Government tax revenues--revenues--were at about 19.6 percent of the gross domestic product. Federal Government spending in that year was about a point lower, 18.5 or 18.6 percent of the gross domestic product. So you are raising about 1 percent more of the GDP than you are spending, and you have a surplus. What is it now? It is startling how the change has occurred. Spending is up close to 25 percent of the gross domestic product, and revenues are down to about 15 percent. Now you have a gap of about 10 percent of spending, as a percentage of GDP, over revenue, and we have this enormous deficit and debt--$14 trillion. If you said to me when I came to Congress in 1989 that our government would one day have a debt of over $14 trillion, I would have said: Impossible. But here we are. And it is growing at $1 trillion a year and more. That is the problem we have. When you think about those percentages I cited, speaking very simplistically, the way we are going to get out of the hole we are in is by cutting spending and raising revenues. We would like to do that in a way that also gets us back to economic growth. That is the critical third factor. If we are growing economically, the revenue system we have will raise more money and help us to close this gap. But doing these two things that are critical to solving the national crisis we have--which is to raise revenue and cut spending--is difficult politically, very hard politically. It is not what a lot of politicians think our constituents want us to do. But I think today the American people are so anxious about the national debt, so anxious about the economy, and so frustrated and angry with Members of Congress that they would like us to do what is counterintuitive, which does not seem like traditional politics, which is to actually do together what will solve the problem--stop the partisan politics, solve the problem. They know we have to cut some spending, we have to raise some revenues, and they want us to do it fairly. That is the difficult dilemma the White House and the bipartisan congressional leadership faced in dealing with this problem, and it results in the agreement. I thank the leaders and the White House for the agreement because it does do some significant things. No. 1, it avoids the unknown risk of a default for the first time in our history. Some people think it would not be so bad. I do not want to play that game with our economy and our financial future. I think it would have hurt us. So it avoids that. Second, it does begin to cut some spending and put some caps on. Third--and maybe this is the most hopeful--it creates a special joint committee of Congress to recommend further cuts in this so-called second tranche of cuts. But it does not do two other things, and as a result, this proposal before us now is unfair. What doesn't it do? It seems to me that in reaching this agreement, each political party yielded to the other party's highest priority political and ideological interest. So this agreement does not deal with entitlement reform at all, including Medicare reform, which is a priority for Democrats, and it does not raise revenues, which is a priority for Republicans. Why do I say it is unfair? It is unfair because it sets before us a solution to the problem that only asks of the discretionary spending lines in our budget. What I mean to say here is that discretionary spending in fiscal year 2010 represented about 35 percent of all government spending. Mandatory spending, the so-called entitlements, was almost 60 percent. So 35 percent discretionary, 60 percent mandatory. Interest payments were about 5.5 percent. So if you are taking the mandatory spending off the table and you are not going to add any revenues, then you are left with taking all the savings that this agreement proposes to achieve--almost $3 trillion, maybe at best $3 trillion--you are taking it all out of discretionary spending. In doing that, you are going to end up having a devastating effect on our security and I believe on our prosperity and also on our future, on the capacity of our government to take care of those who are most vulnerable and on the capacity of our government to help the economy grow. To better explain this, I just want to say very briefly, what is discretionary spending? Well, there is the defense side, which is the Department of Defense. In some cases in the agreement, it is described as security, and that would include Homeland Security and the Veterans' Administration. The nondefense discretionary includes most of what most people see as our government: education, health, administration of justice, energy, environment, agriculture, commerce, community and regional development, science, space, technology research. All of those will suffer devastating cuts under this proposal because we have not been able to deal with entitlements, particularly Medicare. Why do I cite Medicare? I believe in Medicare. I think it is a great program. But, look, it is on course to do two things: One, it is going to go bankrupt soon, according to the report of its own trustees, no later than 2024 but as soon as 4 or 5 years from now. The hospital part of Medicare is going to go bankrupt. It is not going to have enough money. Why? Because though people put money, through their payroll taxes, into hospital insurance, the reality is that the average beneficiary of Medicare takes $3 or $4 out for every $1 put in. You cannot do that and have it be sustained over the long haul. And over the next decade, approximately 20 million more Americans are going on to Medicare because of the baby boomer generation. So it is the single largest, fastest growing element of our Federal budget. It seems to me--again, I support Medicare. I voted against the Ryan budget. I do not want to privatize it. But you cannot protect Medicare as it is and expect it to stay as it is. You are only going to protect Medicare by changing it, and this budget does not touch that at all. I could say more about that, but that is enough for the moment. So the end result of all this is that of the approximately $1 trillion in the so-called first phase or tranche of cuts adopted by this plan, they are pretty much all from discretionary spending, defense and nondefense--Head Start, Pell grants, education, and defense. The second phase is the part that bothers me and really worries me, I would say. The proposal before us sets up a committee, 12 Members of Congress equal in terms of party allocation. They have the opportunity to deal with the problems that are left out of this and have this be a fairer proposal to get America back in balance; that is, to deal with the entitlements and deal with the revenues--tax reform, entitlement reform, whatever you want to call it. But will they? And if they do not, if the two parties' priority political and ideological interests are reflected in the committee and stop it from dealing with entitlements and revenues or are reflected on the floor, then there is an automatic mechanism for cutting an additional $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion, and that all comes out of discretionary spending, defense and nondefense. Some of my other colleagues have come to the floor to describe the impact on nondefense discretionary spending, really most of what we know as government: education, health care, environmental protection, transportation, et cetera, et cetera. I am on the Armed Services Committee. I am on the Homeland Security Committee, privileged to be chair. My priority in my service in the Senate has been our national security. I will tell you this: If that sequester ever went into effect, it would have a devastating impact on the ability of our men and women in uniform and their leaders to protect our security in what remains a dangerous world. The initial $1 trillion of cuts mandated in this proposal includes $350 billion over the 10 years from defense, as I understand the numbers. President Obama had earlier directed the Department of Defense to cut $400 billion from their spending over the next decade. The Department of Defense is working on that. GEN Martin Dempsey, soon to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was working on that. He thought he could accomplish it, but it was not going to be easy. He was asked: What would happen if you were demanded to go beyond the $400 billion in cuts from defense over the next 10 years? He said it would be extraordinarily difficult and involve very high risk to our national security. He is not against cuts in defense. I am not against cuts in defense. But they have to be reasonable because, in the end, the first responsibility of our national government is to protect our security. If we do not have security, we do not have anything else. We do not have freedom. We do not have prosperity. We do not have anything else. The world is full of people who want to do us damage, who want to kill us, who want to bring down our civilization, who are involved in an ideological--some sense theological--clash with us. I am just saying that if the joint committee, the special committee, cannot reach agreement or reaches agreement and Congress rejects its proposals, there will be an automatic cut in defense of an additional $500 to $600 billion over the next decade. Add that to the $350 billion already in the first phase mandated by this proposal, we have $1 trillion in cuts. We are not going to be protected, as we have to be. It is as simple as that. It is unfair--not only unfair, it is irresponsible. Admiral Mullen was in Afghanistan over the weekend. He had a conversation with some of our troops that got a lot of attention from the media. One of the soldiers got up and said: Admiral Mullen, we were following the debt debate in Congress. Can you promise us we will get paid regularly in the coming weeks? Admiral Mullen quite honestly said: I do not know. Because it was not clear whether we were going to come to an agreement and avoid a default. I will tell you, if this full package goes forward and the joint committee does not reach a different result and recommendation and $1 trillion of cuts are imposed on our national security-Defense Department budget over the next 10 years, whoever is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when this goes into effect--it will be General Dempsey--he will still be there, fortunately, in January of 2013--when they are asked: Will we get paid, I believe they are still going to say: I do not know. Some of you will. We may have to have a reduction in end strength in the force, the number of people we have protecting our country. If families of men and women in uniform for the United States ask, if this total package of cuts goes into effect on defense, if their families of the military ask: Are our loved ones in uniform going to be given the equipment to carry out the missions our country is asking of them in a way that maximizes their ability to succeed and protects them, I do not think anybody in the military can say yes. I could not say yes, if that was the case. So I am disappointed. I will say one other thing because we are all so focused on jobs and the economy. The American military does not just protect our security and advance our ideals, as it does, and live by our ideals, as it does, but it also has a tremendous positive impact on our economy. It is the American military that is the foundation of an international system of stability and security that has undergirded, that has been the precondition of the enormous growth that has happened in America and a lot of other places in the world, where hundreds of millions, probably billions, of people have come out of poverty because they could rely on the safety of the sea lanes, they could rely on order in the world in places such as Asia, Europe, and throughout the world. If the American military is cut as much, in the worst case as this proposal would cut it, it is the beginning of the end of America as a great international power. It is the beginning of the end of this system of international security that has undergirded our prosperity and so much of the prosperity of the world. Which other nation will assume the responsibility we have? We have benefitted from it greatly. It is a statement that we are prepared to decline as a country. I come back and say again, that to get us out of the fiscal hole we in the Federal Government have put this country into, everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to take cuts. That includes defense, and there is a lot that can be cut out of defense. But there is also a lot that has to be changed in entitlement spending. There are people who are getting away with tax loopholes who ought to be paying more in taxes. Everybody has to contribute to solve this national crisis. Right now, this proposal is unfair because it adds contributions, cuts, sacrifice only from the recipients of discretionary spending, and that means while all of them should be paying--should be accepting cuts, they are being asked to take cuts that are unfair and counterproductive to our security, to our liberty, to our prosperity, to our morality as a country that has always taken care of people who could not take care of themselves. If these discretionary cuts go into effect, all that will be jeopardized. So I have come to say this to my colleagues and to say, frankly, that I have not decided how I am going to vote. I understand the proposal does prevent the default, it does begin some process of cuts, and it has this committee which offers the most hope. But on the other hand, I see in front of me a mechanism set up which I think--if it goes through its conclusion--will have not a net positive effect on our future, if the committee's work is not good and accepted by Congress, but a net negative effect on America's future. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coltsville National Historical Park Act, and express my strong support for the designation of the Coltsville Historical District in Hartford, Connecticut as a National Park. I thank my colleague Senator Blumenthal for joining me as an original cosponsor of this legislation, and also wish to thank my longtime friend and colleague, Congressman John Larson, who recently introduced an identical version of this bill in the House. In 1990, I had the privilege of introducing and successfully fighting for the legislation that established the Weir Farm National Historic Site as Connecticut's first and, as yet, only contribution to the National Park System. Over two decades later, I am honored to strive for the same outcome for Coltsville. Located on the banks of the Connecticut River in Hartford, Coltsville is at the heart of a cluster of historical landmarks of great significance for Connecticut and our entire Nation. A newly established national park in Coltsville would span more than 200 acres and beckon tourists to such Hartford destinations as the homes of Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher Stowe, as well as to the great events organized by Riverfront Recapture, along our beautiful waterfront. Coltsville's past is as compelling as its future possibilities. Samuel Colt, born in Hartford, was first famous for developing the revolving-breech pistol, which became one of the standard small arms of the world in the last half of the nineteenth century. Production of that firearm helped build a model town on the banks of the Connecticut River, including the Colt Armory, workers' housing, Colt Park, the Church of the Good Shepherd, and the Colt family home, known as ``Armsmear.'' At its peak during the twentieth century, the factory at Coltsville employed over 10,000 people and made a significant contribution to the country's war effort. But the legacy of the Colt operation goes well beyond the manufacturing of guns. Colt himself invented a submarine battery used in harbor defense, a submarine telegraph cable, and other innovations. The success of Samuel and Elizabeth Colt's precision firearms business led to other industrial advancements in Connecticut and throughout New England, including the manufacture of sewing machines and typewriters. Ultimately, the spirit of innovation fostered at Coltsville was crucial to establishing Connecticut's proud tradition of manufacturing everything from small arms to jet engines, and even the submarines that our servicemembers use to defend our freedoms. The early industrial innovators represented the same pioneering spirit of American ingenuity that we see today in defense, information, and biotechnology firms. Today, we sometimes take this innovation for granted. In Samuel Colt's day, every ingenious development was a grand achievement and a small revelation. The industrial revolution transformed our nation culturally and economically like no other force ever has. People moved into the cities. Living standards rose. The middle class grew and economic growth intensified. Unfortunately, Hartford has not been immune to the economic hardships the country is facing. That is why Coltsville must be a beacon to our nation of what once was and can be again, the center of industry, innovation, and prosperity. Just as Coltsville did for Hartford during the Industrial Revolution, the designation of a National Park will serve as a catalyst for growth in a struggling city. I believe that memorializing Sam and Elizabeth Colt and their movement is particularly important as Americans struggle to emerge from a deep recession. The way we are going to revitalize our economy is to invest in people, to invest in and inspire innovation that will pioneer new industries that will create millions of new jobs. Coltsville is a historic landmark and a living reminder of the extraordinary advances in technology and innovation that have been America's story for over 400 years. I thank Senator Blumenthal and Congressman Larson for their work and dedication to advance Coltsville's status as a National Historical Park. I reaffirm my strong support today for recognizing these values, and I look forward to working cooperatively with my colleagues in making it happen. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coltsville National Historical Park Act, and express my strong support for the designation of the Coltsville Historical District in Hartford, Connecticut as a National Park. I thank my colleague Senator Blumenthal for joining me as an original cosponsor of this legislation, and also wish to thank my longtime friend and colleague, Congressman John Larson, who recently introduced an identical version of this bill in the House. In 1990, I had the privilege of introducing and successfully fighting for the legislation that established the Weir Farm National Historic Site as Connecticut's first and, as yet, only contribution to the National Park System. Over two decades later, I am honored to strive for the same outcome for Coltsville. Located on the banks of the Connecticut River in Hartford, Coltsville is at the heart of a cluster of historical landmarks of great significance for Connecticut and our entire Nation. A newly established national park in Coltsville would span more than 200 acres and beckon tourists to such Hartford destinations as the homes of Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher Stowe, as well as to the great events organized by Riverfront Recapture, along our beautiful waterfront. Coltsville's past is as compelling as its future possibilities. Samuel Colt, born in Hartford, was first famous for developing the revolving-breech pistol, which became one of the standard small arms of the world in the last half of the nineteenth century. Production of that firearm helped build a model town on the banks of the Connecticut River, including the Colt Armory, workers' housing, Colt Park, the Church of the Good Shepherd, and the Colt family home, known as ``Armsmear.'' At its peak during the twentieth century, the factory at Coltsville employed over 10,000 people and made a significant contribution to the country's war effort. But the legacy of the Colt operation goes well beyond the manufacturing of guns. Colt himself invented a submarine battery used in harbor defense, a submarine telegraph cable, and other innovations. The success of Samuel and Elizabeth Colt's precision firearms business led to other industrial advancements in Connecticut and throughout New England, including the manufacture of sewing machines and typewriters. Ultimately, the spirit of innovation fostered at Coltsville was crucial to establishing Connecticut's proud tradition of manufacturing everything from small arms to jet engines, and even the submarines that our servicemembers use to defend our freedoms. The early industrial innovators represented the same pioneering spirit of American ingenuity that we see today in defense, information, and biotechnology firms. Today, we sometimes take this innovation for granted. In Samuel Colt's day, every ingenious development was a grand achievement and a small revelation. The industrial revolution transformed our nation culturally and economically like no other force ever has. People moved into the cities. Living standards rose. The middle class grew and economic growth intensified. Unfortunately, Hartford has not been immune to the economic hardships the country is facing. That is why Coltsville must be a beacon to our nation of what once was and can be again, the center of industry, innovation, and prosperity. Just as Coltsville did for Hartford during the Industrial Revolution, the designation of a National Park will serve as a catalyst for growth in a struggling city. I believe that memorializing Sam and Elizabeth Colt and their movement is particularly important as Americans struggle to emerge from a deep recession. The way we are going to revitalize our economy is to invest in people, to invest in and inspire innovation that will pioneer new industries that will create millions of new jobs. Coltsville is a historic landmark and a living reminder of the extraordinary advances in technology and innovation that have been America's story for over 400 years. I thank Senator Blumenthal and Congressman Larson for their work and dedication to advance Coltsville's status as a National Historical Park. I reaffirm my strong support today for recognizing these values, and I look forward to working cooperatively with my colleagues in making it happen. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.