Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is a point of personal privilege or a parliamentary inquiry. Due to the rate at which we are voting on amendments that are pending, can the Parliamentarian or the leadership share with us, after, say, 1 hour and 45 minutes on four votes, what it might look like for the rest of the night?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I now ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments so that I may call up amendment No. 781.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know there may be other Senators who want to call up their amendments. I only want to speak for 2 minutes on the amendment I just proposed and explain to the Senate why this amendment is necessary. And I look forward to working with the chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow from Michigan, and others, to work through the details. It seems as though there is an inconsistency in the law between the 404 process that the Corps of Engineers uses when anyone, public or private, wants to build anything in a wetlands. Of course, you have got to get a permit. We are getting used to that. It is not an easy process, but it works, for the most part. You have got to mitigate; in other words, there is a no-net-loss rule, and we are all supporting that. However, there is a discrepancy in the Farm and Rural Development Act that actually prohibits some very worthy nonprofit entities that are building community projects--this is not for profit--to even apply for a permit, even if they could mitigate, and that is what my amendment seeks to correct. The chairperson on the Agriculture Committee and others who have jurisdiction have committed to work with me to tailor this amendment so that it provides the help some of these loans need through the Rural Development Agency, but it doesn't open a whole new area of policy. I thank the Chair. That is basically a very short but concise and complete description of what I am trying to do. It is about as simple as that. I look forward to when the Senator from Wisconsin allows us to get in line for a vote on this committee. I thank Senator Kohl for allowing us to offer this amendment at this time. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: international trade. From its founding, Louisiana has been a hub for trade and entrepreneurship. In fact, the French explorer Bienville chose the site for the city of New Orleans in 1718 because, at a crescent bend in the Mississippi River, it is close to the Gulf of Mexico but safe from tidal waves. President Thomas Jefferson later made the Louisiana Purchase in 1813 to increase opportunities for U.S. traders and protect U.S. access to the Port of New Orleans. Ever since then, Louisiana and the Mississippi River have been the gateway to the economic heartland of the United States. For example, 60 percent of all grain exported from the United States is shipped via the Mississippi River. It is also a little known fact that the Port of New Orleans imports more steel than any other port in the country. This crucial port sees more goods leave its docks each day than almost anywhere in the Nation. Studies have found that the Port of New Orleans pumps $882 million into the Louisiana economy and helps sustain more than 160,000 jobs. The reality is Louisiana's ports are America's ports and the gateway to the world. There are 31 ports in the State of Louisiana and some of the busiest in the world in terms of gross tonnage. Five of the 31 ports in Louisiana, from the Gulf of Mexico to Baton Rouge, are deepwater ports. We are home to 5 of the country's top 13 ports, exporting more than $40 billion in goods last year alone and making Louisiana the fourth largest exporting State in the country. Louisiana sends everything from sugar to oil to more than 200 countries worldwide. Port Fourchon supports infrastructure that provides 18 percent of the Nation's entire oil supply. The Port of South Louisiana exports more than any other port in the country. When combined with the nearby Port of New Orleans, these ports form the fourth largest port system in terms of volume handled. Today New Orleans hosts an Australian Trade Office, a Mexican Consulate, a French Consulate, and countless honorary consuls. For all of these reasons, I do all I can here in the U.S. Senate to promote exports from Louisiana. These exports mean jobs in my State--from the suppliers, to the manufacturers, to the shipping companies, to the port workers. I support the trade promotion agreements with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama. This is because I believe that these agreements are fair and present excellent opportunities for Louisiana companies. Since coming to the Senate in 1996, I have been a strong supporter of free trade. However, my first priority is our local businesses and workers in Louisiana. For example, I voted against the Central American Trade Promotion Agreement in 2005. I voted against this agreement because I did not feel that the agreement was fair. Free trade requires that all players operate on as level a playing field as possible--accountable to the same labor laws, environmental standards, and governmental intervention. A main reason that I am able to strongly support these three agreements is that the Congress just passed the extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, Program. Congress created TAA in 1962 to help workers and firms adjust to dislocation that may be caused by increased imports. The program assists workers who lose their jobs or whose hours of work and wages are reduced as a result of imports. In 2010 alone, 12 TAA petitions were certified in Louisiana, providing almost $5 million in Federal funds, and most importantly, assisting 1,309 workers. An example of a key business that benefitted from TAA is the Georgia Pacific plywood plant in Logansport. Georgia Pacific was the largest employer in Logansport and in October 2007 it announced that it was immediately closing its local plywood operation, putting 280 employees out of work. The Department of Labor determined an increase in imports contributed to the plant closure, making these workers eligible for TAA benefits. Furthermore, in November 2008, over 500 workers in Bastrop were laid off because of the closure of the International Paper Mill. I worked closely with U.S. Representative Rodney Alexander to secure TAA assistance for these workers in 2009. These workers in Logansport and Bastrop are but two examples of how important this program has been in assisting workers in Louisiana impacted by increased imports. In terms of the pending trade promotion agreements, in my view, Colombia presents the most economic opportunities for Louisiana businesses. Colombia is a fast-growing market of 45 million consumers. This makes it the second largest country in Latin America and the third largest economy in the region. It purchases more U.S. products than Russia, Spain, Indonesia, or Thailand. The United States is also Colombia's largest trading partner in terms of exports and imports. Two-way trade between the countries accounted for more than $28 billion. While these figures sound promising for U.S. exports to Colombia, they do not tell the whole story. In order to keep competing for Colombia's consumers, we must view trade with Colombia as a marathon, not a sprint. The United States is Colombia's top supplier today but China is closing fast on our heels. China has increased its share of the Colombian market sixfold in the last 10 years. Imports from China increased 47 percent in 2010, compared to the previous year. At the current pace, China will displace the United States as Colombia's main trading partner in less than a decade. For my part, I do not intend to concede the race before it is won. Colombia has long been one our closest allies in South America and is making great strides in curbing decades of violence caused by drug cartels, paramilitaries. To concede the Colombian market to China after years of cooperation on economic and strategic interests is unwise. It is particularly unwise and shortsighted as Colombia is an emerging market close to our shores. Colombia has also recently signed agreements with Canada, the European Union, and South Korea that present challenges to U.S. companies competing in the country. Other countries are not standing still on trade opportunities with Colombia and neither should the United States. As of 2010, Colombia was Louisiana's 12th largest export market with $727 million in exported goods. This is down from highs of $856 million in 2007 and $1.5 billion in 2008. The decline in exports is attributed in large measure to a reduction in U.S. agricultural market share in Colombia since 2008. U.S. farmers saw their market share decrease from 46 percent in 2008 to 21 percent in 2010. The reduction stems in part from Colombian agreements with other countries, such as Argentina and Brazil as well as tariffs on U.S. goods as high as 20 percent. Tariffs result from the absence of a bilateral trade promotion agreement, TPA, between the United States and Colombia. That is a major reason I believe the Colombian Trade Promotion Agreement can benefit Louisiana. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Louisiana is currently the third largest exporter of rice in the United States with $136 million in total rice exports. However, U.S. rice exports to Colombia currently face tariff rates from 5 to 20 percent. Under the TPA, Colombia will establish a 79,000-ton, zero-duty rice tariff rate quota, TRQ, that will grow 4.5 percent annually for 19 years. Louisiana rice exports to Colombia could increase by more than $3.2 million per year. Funds from companies bidding on rights to export rice to Colombia duty free will go to research boards in the six biggest rice production States, including Louisiana. This is estimated to be as much as $10 to 12 million per year. As with other agricultural products, since 2008, U.S. soybean exports were down significantly to Colombia as the United States lost market share in the country and tariffs ran as high as 20 percent. In 2010, the United States exported $103 million of soybeans and soybean products. This was a 21-percent drop in U.S. soybean exports from 2009 to 2010 and followed a 51-percent drop from 2008 to 2009. Under the TPA, Colombia will immediately eliminate duties on soybean imports from the United States. Colombia will also establish a 31,200-ton, zero-duty rice tariff rate quota for crude soybean oil that will grow 4.5 percent annually. Louisiana soybean exports to Colombia could increase by more than $600,000 per year. Lastly, the country will also phase out its 24- percent tariff for refined soybean oil over 5 years. Furthermore, in 2010, the United States exported $100 million of cotton to Colombia. Under the TPA, Colombia will immediately eliminate duties on cotton. Louisiana cotton exports to Colombia could increase by more than $710,000 per year. This provides duty-free opportunities for Louisiana cotton producers to gain a new partner to spin, cut, and sew our Louisiana cotton for textiles instead of exporting raw cotton to China. This could provide a double benefit to the U.S. economy as our cotton exports to Colombia are used in many apparel items that Colombia then exports back to the U.S. market. Outside of agricultural products, there are also benefits to other industries in Louisiana from increased opportunities in Colombia. For example, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission, the TPA will result in an annual increase of 23 percent, to $1.9 million, in U.S. exports in chemical, rubber, and plastic goods to Colombia. Why is this important to Louisiana? As you may know, Louisiana hosts 90 major chemical plants and 300 petrochemical manufacturers that directly employ 27,000 skilled workers. The State supplies infrastructure required for world-class manufacturing combined with the necessary service providers--more than 1,000 Louisiana service companies support the petrochemical industry. From 2008 to 2010, 15 percent of the $937 million in goods exported to Colombia consisted of chemical products. Colombian tariffs on Louisiana chemical exports range as high as 20 percent. Under the TPA, 86 percent of U.S. chemical exports would immediately receive duty-free treatment. This will significantly help Louisiana chemical companies looking to export to Colombia. Next, under the TPA, Colombia will immediately eliminate its tariffs on 75 percent of U.S. plastics exports. An example of how this benefits one Louisiana product is that the State exported almost $6 million worth of polyethylene, a plastic widely used in packaging materials, to Colombia in 2010. This product would see almost $900,000 in duty savings. Louisiana companies in the oil and gas machinery and services industries also stand to benefit greatly from the TPA. According to the ``Oil and Gas Journal,'' Colombia has 1.9 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves in 2011, the fifth largest in South America. These reserves are expected to increase with the exploration of several new blocks that were auctioned in 2010. The Energy Information Administration projects that Colombian oil production will surpass the 1 million barrel per day mark during the third quarter of 2012. Also, as of 2010, there were natural gas reserves in Colombia of 4 trillion cubic feet. Because of the huge potential of these reserves, the Colombian Government has made oil and gas exploration and production a top priority. Currently, Louisiana companies exporting oilfield equipment to Colombia face tariffs of 10 percent or higher. They also face growing competition, with 11 percent of the market in 2009 from Chinese companies at lower costs, but lower quality and reliability in relation to U.S. products. Under the TPA, Colombia will immediately eliminate tariffs on 52 percent of U.S. energy equipment exports. Tariffs on an additional 6 percent of exports would be eliminated after 5 years and the remaining 42 percent would be eliminated after 10 years. This allows our highly skilled oilfield companies in Louisiana to get more of their quality products into the Colombian market at lower prices. I also understand that the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement includes strong protections for workers rights. These protections were strengthened further this year by a labor action plan agreement between President Obama and President Santos. The concerns this plan addresses are: violence against Colombian labor union members, inadequate efforts to bring murder suspects to justice, and insufficient protection of workers rights in Colombia. The action plan included major steps that the Colombian Government had to undertake before the trade promotion agreement would enter in force. Key to these reforms included the creation of three ministries: Labor, Justice and Housing. The new Labor Ministry will be responsible for implementing programs to protect labor rights. I also believe that the Colombian Government's efforts to turn the tide on the long-running terrorist insurgency will promote long- term stability in Colombia and the region. This is because a great deal of the violence seen in Colombia over the past decades was fueled by drug money funneled to paramilitary groups and criminal organizations. As the Colombian Government has recovered more control over its territory and demobilizing these groups, it is seeing increased security, social progress and economic growth. I have presented facts and figures, but let me give you an example of a Louisiana company that has already had success in Colombia. Textron Marine and Land Systems, based in New Orleans, manufactures armored personnel carriers and armored security vehicles. They are four-wheeled vehicles that have multiple layers of armor to defend against small arms fire, land mines, and explosive devices. Both of these vehicles have an impressive track record around the world and are vital to the U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Textron builds these vehicles for the U.S. Army at their plants in eastern New Orleans and Slidell. With the help of the U.S. Foreign Commercial Service, Textron was able to secure a $45.6 million contract in 2009 to provide 39 armored personnel carriers for the Colombian Army. These vehicles were delivered to the Colombian Army and see daily service throughout the country protecting their soldiers. Not only did these exports help promote peace and security in Colombia, but they allowed Textron to maintain its workforce and continue the vehicle line into the future. Textron was so successful with this first order that Colombia has requested another 38 armored security vehicles. The combined value of both contracts is more than $80 million. In addition to these vehicles, Textron is working closely with the Colombian Government to create a Center of Excellence for vehicle maintenance in the country. This center would develop maintenance and supply systems to cover all the Colombian armored security vehicles with the potential to cover all other vehicle fleets owned by the government. The company also helped lead a 2009 trade mission of 12 Louisiana companies to Colombia. I applaud Textron, as well as our local U.S. Foreign Commercial Service staff in New Orleans, for promoting these exports in Colombia. Textron is a great example of a Louisiana company that has not just succeeded in tapping this market--they continue to succeed in Colombia. Under the trade promotion agreement, I am optimistic that more Louisiana companies will be able to follow in Textron's successful footsteps. In regards to the South Korea Trade Promotion Agreement, this is another promising, high-growth market for U.S. companies. Korea has an economy at close to $1 trillion and is the eighth largest trading partner of the United States. Korea's economy grew 5.8 percent in the second quarter of 2010 and the International Monetary Fund expects it to grow by 6.1 percent in 2010. There also is currently a trade deficit between Korea--$11 billion in 2009. The trade promotion agreement is estimated by the International Trade Commission to improve the trade balance with Korea by $3.3 billion to $4 billion. Lastly, I am aware that as in Colombia, the European Union, EU, signed a trade promotion agreement with South Korea on July 1, 2011. This agreement eliminated 98.7 percent of the Korean tariffs on EU products. U.S. companies are now at a sharp competitive disadvantage in this growing market. We used to be Korea's top trading partner but now have taken a backseat to China, Japan, and the EU. Over the last decade, China's market share increased in Korea from 7 percent to 18 percent alone while U.S. market share flipped from 21 percent to 9 percent. So this is another instance where inaction on a bilateral agreement could cost the United States dearly on Korean market share, missed export opportunities, and most importantly, lost job opportunities here at home. Overall, I note that Korea bought $3.9 billion in agricultural products in 2009, making Korea our fifth largest agricultural export destination. This is despite the fact that Korea's tariffs on imported agricultural products average 54 percent, compared to the average 9 percent levied by the United States on the same type of imports. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, exports by American's ranchers and farmers to Korea will increase by almost $1.8 billion every year under the agreement. This is attributed to increases in exports of grain, oilseed, fiber, fruit, vegetable, and livestock products. Louisiana farmers stand to benefit greatly from these reductions in agricultural tariffs in Korea. For example, as the agreement eliminates tariffs and other barriers on most agricultural products, this increases export opportunities for Louisiana cotton, beef and soybeans. I have heard from my soybean farmers in Louisiana that they have tried in the past to develop a market in Korea, but have had difficulty. They are optimistic that the agreement will help efforts to establish a market in Korea--particularly with getting soybean products into Korea's livestock industry. One company that should benefit from the Korea Trade Promotion Agreement is Pontchartrain Blue Crab. As you know, Korea is the fifth largest market for U.S. fish and fish product exports. Gary Bauer, owner of Pontchartrain Blue Crab, PBC, has been in the blue crab fishery for nearly 29 years. He began working in the industry as a commercial fisherman in 1979, where he worked part time to support his family. Mr. Bauer then established a seafood dock to service fishermen from Lake Pontchartrain. Pontchartrain Blue Crab has grown from 4 employees to now more than 70 employees. In 2002, PBC was able to create a blue crab processing plant located in Slidell, LA, which then allowed the company to pasteurize crab into exportable containers. Like other businesses in south Louisiana, however, it had to rebuild its facilities following Hurricane Katrina. With assistance from the Small Business Administration, SBA, Mr. Bauer and his company were able to export into the Korean market. Their success in Korea has encouraged PBC to also look into expanding into the European market in the near future. So although PBC is already in the Korean market, reductions in Korean tariffs offer new opportunities for the company. There are also benefits to nonagricultural businesses from this trade promotion agreement. One area that will greatly assist Louisiana companies is reductions on tariffs on chemical exports. Currently chemical product exports accounted for an average of $360 million per year of Louisiana's exports to Korea between the years of 2008 to 2010. However, Korean chemical tariffs average 6 percent but can run as high as 50 percent. As such, U.S. exporters of chemicals and related products, including chemicals, organic chemicals, plastics, and fertilizers will see significant reductions in tariffs on their exports to Korea. First, 50 percent of U.S. chemical exports will receive duty- free treatment immediately after the agreement enters into force. The remaining tariffs will be phased out over 10 years. Tariffs on such products as silicon and plastics will also be eliminated immediately. The third trade promotion agreement is with Panama. It is my understanding that Panama is already a great market for U.S. exports, even with an uneven playing field. U.S. products entering Panama are subject to tariffs, but most products from Panama receive duty-free treatment when entering the United States. The trade promotion agreement will encourage further expansion and diversification of U.S. exports in the country. With a major expansion of the Panama Canal, a huge subway project in Panama City and development of the world's fifth largest copper mine underway, the opportunities ahead for U.S. companies in Panama are significant. By entering into a bilateral agreement with Panama, the United States also ensures that our companies can compete for contracts on the $5.25 billion Panama Canal expansion project. EU and Canadian companies currently have the inside track on these contracts because of their bilateral agreements with Panama. In terms of Louisiana, agricultural exports to Panama stand to benefit greatly from the trade promotion agreeement. While the benefits for the Louisiana rice industry as not as great as with Colombia, duties on U.S. rice exports will be phased out over 20 years. There will also be two separate tariff rate quotas established--one for rough rice and one for milled rice. The milled rice TRQ in year one of the agreement is 4,240 metric tons and will increase 6 percent each year before becoming duty free in year 20. This TRQ qill allow for improved access for Louisiana milled rice starting in the agreement's first year of implementation. As I have indicated before, in 2010 Louisiana exported $427 million in soybeans and soybean products abroad. The Louisiana soybean industry will also see Panama lock in its current zero-tariff treatment for soybeans and soybean meal after the agreement is implemented. Panama is a smaller market than Korea or Colombia but the country's geographic proximity to Louisiana presents unique opportunities for our companies. With that in mind, let me give you an example of a Louisiana company currently working in Panama. Baker Sales Inc. of Slidell, LA, is a small business that distributes imported steel tubing and fencing. When construction slumped during the recession, so did demand for steel products. They saw their sales drop 20 percent last year when oil/gas contractors pulled orders after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. For 30 years, Baker Sales has imported steel products and sold them to customers largely within a 200-mile radius of Slidell. The company has always wanted to export--particularly recently as they identified opportunities in Panama, where South American immigrants are moving in, necessitating new housing developments and high-rises. President Robert Baker paid $800 for U.S. Commercial Service's Gold Key Service last March. He met with a dozen potential clients in Panama over 2 days and one developer he met is interested in ordering $100,000 aluminum fencing. Thanks to the higher loan limits authorized by the Small Business Jobs Act passed by Congress last year, Baker Sales Inc. received a $3 million U.S. Small Business Administration 7(a) loan that will help them expand their business by facilitating export transactions with buyers in Panama. They immediately hired two more employees because of the loan. As sales to Panama increase--and potential sales to South Korea materialize--the company expects to hire more employees. In closing, as chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am aware that cash registers are not ringing like they used to for our small businesses around the country. For this reason, exporting has become a practical solution for small businesses looking to survive and grow. Small businesses across the country have not only used exporting to weather the economic storm, they have proven that what helps our entrepreneurs helps our entire economy. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. exports supported an estimated 9.2 million jobs in 2010--up from 8.7 million in 2009. Furthermore, for every billion dollars of exports, over 5,000 jobs are supported. As our country digs out of the economic crisis, helping more small businesses export for the first time and current exporters reach new countries, should be a top priority. I believe that small businesses can lead us out of this recession by creating new and higher paying jobs and lessening this trade deficit. These three trade promotion agreements will further promote small business exports and help our companies compete in these growing markets.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship favorably reported out the President's nomination of Dr. Winslow Lorenzo Sargeant to serve as Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. I am pleased that President Obama nominated such a talented individual to this top position at the SBA. His confirmation will complete the SBA's exceptional leadership team. As Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Dr. Winslow Sargeant brings a unique background to this very important position. With a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in electrical engineering and a background as a very successful small business owner, he is not only well-educated but well-educated about the challenges facing small businesses today. He is the former managing director of Venture Investors, a Midwest venture capital company with a concentration on starting up healthcare and technology companies. From 2001 to 2005, he served as a program manager for SBIR in electronics at the National Science Foundation. He has also worked at IBM as a staff engineer, at AT&T as technical staff, and as an associate adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania. With capable leaders such as Dr. Sargeant at the helm, the agency is more than ready to continue to play an important role in assisting small businesses as they lead this country to an economic recovery. We look forward to continuing to work with them and to a new era for the SBA and American small businesses.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, located on the eastern edge of Louisiana, Washington Parish plays a central role in celebrating our State's unique culture and history. Every October, residents and leaders of the parish host the annual Washington Parish Fair, which marks its 100th anniversary this month. This quiet but remarkable parish is known for its agriculture, its scenic rivers, and its thriving workforce, which spans across a number of industries, including paper and timber production. Once the center of the dairy industry, the area boasts a relatively low unemployment rate, with nearly 75 percent of its workforce belonging to the community's private sector. The parish is also known for its genuine hospitality. Its residents volunteer tirelessly for the annual Washington Parish Fair, which is believed to be the largest fair of its kind in the country. The 5-day event, which began in 1911, now attracts families from all over the State. They spend the weekend enjoying the wide range of activities the fair has to offer--including a livestock show, a rodeo and carnival rides--while taking in the unique Louisiana scenery. This popular event is a model of the community spirit and a prime example of the cultural and economic advancement that can be achieved when neighbors work together for a common goal. Every year, Washington Parish leaders and residents commit themselves to the success of the event, and I commend them for their efforts to continue such a first- rate Louisiana tradition.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to speak for up to 15 minutes, and I may extend my time as the debate goes.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to follow up on the remarks of Leader Reid by reminding everyone how unfortunate but in some ways necessary this situation is. This whole debate, in my view, is worth having. It is unfortunate it is so close to the end of the year because the Senate actually offered a bill, as the Presiding Officer may remember, earlier in September to try to avoid getting to this last minute. But this whole controversy started just a few days after Hurricane Irene had raked the east coast and wreaked havoc from North Carolina, through Connecticut, into Vermont and New Hampshire, and people are still reeling. The way this controversy started was Representative Cantor said: Before we can provide help, we need to find an offset in the budget. In other words, before we can help the victims of Irene--the thousands of homes that were flooded, the electrical wires on the ground, the businesses flooded out--we have to go to Washington and find a program to cut. I strongly objected then, and I have objected every day since then to that Cantor doctrine. So this is an argument and a debate worth having. This could have been completely avoided if, the day after, Representative Cantor, with all the outcry from his own district and newspapers around the country, many of which editorialized against that position, would have just said: I am sorry, I made a mistake. And I have had to say that in my political career: I am sorry, I made a mistake. But instead of saying that, he doubled down, and he doubled down on the backs of people from Pennsylvania, to New York, and actually to Louisiana and Mississippi because it is our projects that have been stopped for the last 6 weeks. FEMA, as far as Louisiana is concerned, was out of money 6 weeks ago. This is what the Cantor doctrine looks like to a very clever cartoonist. I am going to put this up in my office and keep it forever. It says: Welcome to the Republican disaster relief hotline. At the tone, please tell us the emergency and how you plan to offset the cost of your rescue. Here is Grandmother sitting on the roof, with her little cat on the chimney, with her television and her cane, calling FEMA. I am the appropriations chair of this committee, as my colleagues know. It is a good thing I am chairing this appropriations committee because I happen to know a lot about disaster relief, having to lead the effort for the gulf coast in the wake of Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike. This is not a little matter, as some of the press reported over the weekend. I have read most of the editorials from coast to coast. Some have written: Why is Congress arguing? This is such a minor matter. I don't think the $40 billion it took to rebuild the gulf coast is a minor matter, and I don't think any taxpayer in America would think $40 billion is a minor matter. This Cantor doctrine must be rejected. I am not the only one who believes this. There are wonderful articles and editorials in papers all across the country. I am going to read some of them today. I am so glad people were working through the weekend and focusing on this debate. From Colorado, the Denver Post writes: . . . and some Members of Congress are so bent on budget cutting-- They are referring to the Republicans, of course-- that they happily seize the opportunity to demand concessions, despite the larger impact on our struggling economy. In this case, it is demanding that money for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide emergency disaster assistance to communities hit by flood, fire, and other manner of natural disasters, be offset by comparable cuts to the Federal budget. Demanding such offsets is unprecedented in terms of emergency relief, and it has again manufactured the prospects of a shutdown. To be clear, we are not supporting a blank check-- And neither am I. I have been an appropriator since I was 23 years old. I am 56. I understand balanced budgets and debt limits and curbing government spending. I have been a part of those efforts. The last time we had a balanced budget, a Democrat was in the White House--Bill Clinton--as the Presiding Officer knows. We understand there is no such thing as a free lunch or a blank check, and we are going to pay for these disasters, but we don't have to pay for them while Grandmother is on the roof. We can figure out how to pay for it later and send help to her now. The article goes on to say: . . . but we think any near-term spending cuts are best dealt with by the super committee as opposed to a symbolic standoff that sends ripple effects beyond Washington. This is the Brattleboro Vermont Reformer: Though individuals eligible for Federal disaster aid and State and city governments recouping emergency response costs are still receiving funds, projects dating back as far as Hurricane Katrina are once again waiting for money. How did House majority leader Eric Cantor of Virginia respond? He said: ``Change like this is hard.'' The paper goes on to say: However, not as hard as waiting for power lines to get restrung along the Auger Hole Road, wondering when, if ever, you will be able to move back into your waterlogged home or when your road might become passable again. Though Congress has about a week to get everything ironed out, we can expect this argument to go down to the last minute. I wish we weren't here at the last minute. I wish to remind everyone that the Senate passed--with a bipartisan response to this, which provided the money FEMA needed without the offset--it was passed bipartisanly with 10 Republicans and all the Democrats and sent to the House. They could have passed that bill, and we would all be gone now, with FEMA replenished, set up for the next year, and the jobs program, which is really a private sector effort to create jobs in America, would be untouched and would be moving forward. This argument started when Representative Cantor came up with a new tea party agenda, which is for flood victims to let FEMA know what offset can be required before they are rescued. Other newspapers throughout the country, including Pennsylvania, say: Much of northeast Pennsylvania needs Federal assistance to recover from flooding, but two of the region's representatives-- In this case, both Republican Representatives-- offered an unacceptable condition. They go on to say--they list the Members. They say: The problem isn't the Senate, which earlier had passed a bill by a positive vote that included 10 Republicans to appropriate more than $7 billion for FEMA that handles disaster relief. That fund could run dry. The House responded with a bill that would provide $3.7 billion, but only if two loan programs for energy development projects were rescinded. Senator Harry Reid, they say, ``goes on to offer a compromise with the House.'' But I guess we are in the time of no compromise and take whatever hostages you can. In this case, the tea party Republicans want to take hostage the Grandma who is on her roof asking for help. Even the New York newspapers: Congress shouldn't allow disaster aid for people devastated by Tropical Storm Irene to be stalled by a fight over how much is enough and how to cover the tab. We are willing to negotiate with the House over how much. We believe our number of $6.1 billion is not enough for the year, and I think the records will show as we move forward that I am accurate. But given the situation we are in, we don't need to fight over that amount because if $6.1 billion isn't enough, most certainly $3.5 billion that the House has offered isn't enough, and we can work that out later on and that is what Leader Reid has offered. But requiring an offset, particularly an offset from a program that Republicans themselves supported, that was signed into law by President Bush, and that is supported by the chamber of commerce, the National Manufacturers Association, the League of Cities, the National Conference of Mayors, and an offset that has created 40,000 jobs, that is a road I don't think we should go down. If it is a manufacturing program today that the new Cantor doctrine requires, as one of these great articles this weekend said, maybe next time we have a disaster, we will have to offer up education programs; and the next time we have a disaster, we will have to offer up a fourth of our transportation budget; and the next time we have a disaster, we will have to offer up aid to Israel; or maybe the next time we have a disaster, we will have to offer up something else. When does the offering up stop? The worst time to negotiate how to find funding after a disaster is when emotions are high, when people are really at their sort of emotional limit, particularly the disaster victims themselves. We want to argue and debate these things when cool heads prevail and once we get the estimates. It is hard, within a week or two or three of an emergency, to even know what those estimates are. We have to wait for the insurance adjusters to go out, for the FEMA adjusters to go out, for people to even get back to their communities to assess the damage. Believe me, I have been through this. It was months after the aftermath of Katrina before people in my city of New Orleans and in parts of my State could even get back into their neighborhoods--months. Not days, not weeks, months. I remember people along the gulf coast having to come in on foot with chainsaws to try to get back. It took them days. That is another reason why we do not want to have to find an offset to fund disasters. We want to do a couple things. We want to budget as carefully as we can in advance. I want to answer this argument that: Oh, well, the reason Congress is in this pickle is because they did not budget for disasters. I am going to put up a chart in a minute--if staff will grab that one for me--to show that we have budgeted for disasters. We have not budgeted as adequately as we should. This has been a problem for Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. But I have to say, as chair of this committee, I have doubled the amount of money--more than doubled the amount of money--in anticipation of disasters to try to get in front of it. But no one--unless they had a crystal ball--could have predicted that 48 out of 50 States would have had disasters this year in America. It is unprecedented. We would have had to have a crystal ball that was always right and never, ever wrong to be able to predict we would have had that many disasters. What can we do in the future? I have offered to my colleagues-- Senator Blunt, Senator Snowe, and others--that I will work with them in the future to get a bill that mandates that Democratic and Republican Presidents, regardless of party, would have to send to us--budgeted and paid for--at least a 10-year average of previous disasters. But I have to say, even if we would have had that law in place--which is the best we can all collectively think of; and universities or businesses would recommend the same--we still would have underestimated this last year, and we still would have underestimated Katrina and Rita. That is why I am on the floor making this argument. I know it is inconvenient for Members to have to come back this week. I know people wanted to be away this week to work in their districts. But this is an argument and a debate worth having. I hope our side will prevail, but if not, at least we put up the fight that I think is necessary to make the argument to the American people. But even if we had a crystal ball and even if we had budgeted more than the $1.8 billion we budget every year, approximately, out of Homeland Security, look what happened when Katrina and Rita and Wilma hit. This went up to $45 billion--Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Wilma, you will remember, was one of the storms that hit Florida. In the year before, Florida had four storms. Dennis, Ivan, Frances, and Charley hit Florida in 1 year. I believe that is why Senator Rubio and Senator Nelson understand the hollowness and the danger of the Cantor doctrine. Because had this doctrine been in effect when these four hurricanes hit Florida back in 2004, the people of Florida would have had to come to Congress, and before we could spend one dime to help them, we would have had to find a $3 billion offset. Mr. President, maybe we would have gone to your State and taken the money out of your transportation program or gone to my State or gone somewhere to find $3 billion, but we did not. We sent Florida their $3 billion, and we will pay for it over time. I do not know what we would have done on the gulf coast had the people of the United States enforced the Cantor doctrine, which was to find $45 billion like that--like that--before we could have sent money to Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana or Texas. I could go on and on and on. One of the more disappointing positions Republicans are holding, particularly Representative Cantor, which is very disappointing, is that we have to scramble to find offsets for Americans who are in trouble, but we can just send free money to Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not have to send an offset to rebuild Iraq. We do not have to find an offset to rebuild Afghanistan. But we have to scramble around here and find an offset to help the people of our country. Third point. Some of the House Members have stood and said: Senator Landrieu is wrong. We have offset emergency funding in the past. That is correct. We have offset emergency funding, but emergency funding is different than FEMA funding. We have emergencies such as dams break and levees break and the Corps of Engineers needs extra money. Over the course of time, we have, occasionally--because we want to be responsible with the budget when we can, and when we have time to figure it out, we most certainly can find offsets in programs that are not working as well. So we can eliminate that and push some of that money to emergency funding. We have done it in the military. We have done it for the Corps of Engineers. But if we do this, this will be the first time we have required an offset for FEMA funding in the history of our country. I think it is a road we do not want to go down, and it can be avoided. We do not have to walk down this road. We can eliminate the offset completely. FEMA may--under the last 24 to 48 hours--be able to stretch their money through Friday. We can even accept the House number, which is the lower number. It is not going to be adequate. We are going to be back here literally in 8 weeks having the same debate. But they are hardheaded and insistent that they want to continue to have this debate week after week after week. But at least the $3 billion will jump-start all our programs that are stalled and many of them are in my State, which is why I am spending a lot of time on this, but I am also concerned about everybody else's State. It will give us enough money to get through Thanksgiving, maybe the first of the year. It is not going to be enough for all next year. That is a reasonable compromise. On the side of that compromise is the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, four Governors of disaster-hit States--two Republicans and two Democrats--the National League of Cities, and the National Conference of Mayors. That is just to name a few. There are editorials across the country from Pennsylvania to New York, to Louisiana. The Times-Picayune, my own newspaper, of which I am very proud, editorialized for this position that to require an offset before one can be rescued is not the American way. We do not require it when we declare war or disaster. We go ahead and send the troops, and we fund them later. I do not believe we want to go down this road. So Leader Reid has brought us back to try to work through it. Again, the Senate, earlier in September, passed a bipartisan resolution. The House rejected it for their own reason, insisting that we have an offset. We are back saying that is a wrong policy to adopt. This is not the right time in America to adopt it. If we were going to adopt it, this is definitely the wrong program to eliminate. This program has created, with the private sector--this is not government jobs. These are private sector jobs that have been created. Republican leaders in the House--and I am going to read those letters for the Record this afternoon again--supported the program, wrote letters to the Secretary asking for this funding to be spent in their districts, and then they turn around and offer this as an offset when it is unnecessary, unprecedented, and absolutely wrongheaded. For the legislators, the Congress men and women along the gulf coast, it is particularly disturbing. After receiving $45 billion-- Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas--after Katrina and Rita and not one penny offset while it was going on--we are all going to be paying for it for many years to come in our regular budgeting process--to then turn around and say, when the east coast needs help: Oh, no, we need to find an offset today. That is how this argument started. I do not like to fight. I like to cooperate. I am one of nine siblings. I have two children myself. I have been happily married to my husband for 23 years. We resolve things by talking and negotiating in our home. We do not like to fight in our family. But I have learned one thing: Some things are worth fighting for, win or lose. I have led this effort. I have been proud to lead it. I am so grateful to my colleagues on the Democratic side, both in the House and the Senate, who have spoken on this point, who have changed their schedules to support this. Win or lose, it is right to stand against the Cantor doctrine and the tea party agenda. I guess this is where this comes from. We have never seen this before. Never have we offset a dime of FEMA funding. We have offset emergency funding, we have offset defense emergencies, Corps of Engineers emergencies, HUD community development block grant money we have offset but not FEMA. But the Republican caucus in the House has run us right down to the wire, not willing to negotiate, not willing to even recognize the bipartisan bill we sent over there. Sometimes we say ``bipartisan'' around here if we have one Republican and all the Democrats. We kind of brag because we have bipartisanship. This was 10--10--Republican Senators. That is a big number today. We broke a Republican filibuster on this with 10 Republican Senators who said Eric Cantor was wrong. Now is not the time. We do not have to find an offset. Let's negotiate. Let's work through this. They were right. I hope they will stand strong. I hope the leadership can work this out. But, again, if we cannot, it was worth, in my view, the fight over this to say: The Cantor doctrine is dangerous for the country. Let me just remind everyone--because I have spoken about the gulf coast--these are 48 States represented that have been hit by disasters. The only States that have been spared a natural disaster are Michigan and West Virginia. But as the Senators from Michigan will tell us, they have been experiencing their own economic disaster now for almost 6 years, an economic meltdown in Michigan. Because of the crash of the auto industry and the foreclosure disaster and the crash of some of the Wall Street banks and other banks, Michigan has been very hard hit. West Virginia is always one of our poorer States, with great assets, but they struggle all the time. So we can honestly say all 50 States are in need of help. Why don't we help them? We have a supercommittee set up. Many of us are working hard on closing the deficit gap. We have already cut trillions, literally trillions, of dollars from this budget over the last 2 years. We have trillions more to cut and we have revenues to raise. But this time we have to find money in this budget--in this case for something that is wholly unprecedented and unnecessary--they recommend a program that is actually helping to turn around a very weak job outlook. It is creating jobs. It has created 40,000. It could create more public-private partnerships, promoting loans to auto companies that are creating new and different kinds of automobiles so we can minimize our dependence on foreign oil, we can start building again in America, we can start manufacturing again in America. Again, it is a program--some of the newspapers reported it--Democrats support. This is a program George Bush signed into law. This is a program that Republicans and Democrats have supported. This is a program that actually works to put Americans back to work. Why would they pick this one? Why would they pick any one? But why would they pick this one? Because they wanted to pick a fight, and they knew we were not just going to say: OK, fine. So we did not pick this fight. I did not pick this fight. Representative Cantor started it when he decided on a Cantor doctrine that would make disaster victims have to find an offset before they could be helped. I am going to close with where I started, with this cartoon that says it all: Welcome to the Republican disaster relief hotline. At the tone, please tell us the emergency and how you plan to offset the cost of your rescue. . . . This is not America. We have gone too far. If this kind of government is on the tea party agenda, I suggest they remove that item for consideration. This is not the way we operate our government in the United States. We are there for people in their time of need. We do not ask them to find an offset. We will pay for this. We are working to have our budget balanced. But we do not put this kind of pressure on tax-paying Americans, who hardly ask us for anything. But when their home is washed away, when their business is destroyed, they expect FEMA to be there and they do not have to scramble around with their congressional delegation or their mayors or their counsel members or their local representatives to wring their hands and say: What program can we suggest Congress cut so we can get our meals today or our shelter for next week? It is not the way we do business. I hope as Members come back tonight to talk about this, we can find a way forward, keep our government operating, and do what is right for Americans and our country. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. There are other Members who are coming down to speak. But while I have this time, I wanted to just add a few other comments to the Record. First of all, over the weekend, there were some reports and some statements made that this was a manufactured crisis by one of our colleagues on one of the big talk shows on Sunday morning. First of all, that infers this is not a real crisis, that it was just made up because we enjoy fighting here in Washington. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not fun to do, but sometimes this is necessary. Sometimes it is necessary to draw sharp lines between policies because the outcome affects people's lives. Where would we have been along the gulf coast had that Cantor doctrine been in effect and used when Katrina hit the gulf coast? Instead of New Orleans and Biloxi and large portions of the gulf coast being rebuilt today, we would still probably be debating where we were going to find the money to do the work. Now, that is No. 1. No. 2, the crisis may not be real for the whole country right now, today, as we speak on Monday, but I promise, for people in many States--and I will find this document which I have used several times in debate on the Senate floor--it is pages and pages, too numerous to mention--they are already having a crisis because these line items and numbers represent projects that have already been pink-slipped, shut down. Government is still operating through this week, and we are going to work this out. We are not going to let the government shut down over this. I promise you--if I have anything to say about it. I might not, and my caucus may overrule me, but it is worth arguing about to try to see if we can come to some reasonable compromise, which Leader Reid has offered. But there is already a crisis. For those who think this is manufactured, why don't they spend time this afternoon calling some of these small businesspeople who have shut down their operations? They were building a road in Alaska, and they stopped because FEMA stopped their funding weeks and weeks ago. This isn't made up by Mary Landrieu. We can call Craig Fugate or anybody on this list if anyone thinks this is manufactured. They have stopped their projects because FEMA technically ran out of money months ago. They are operating on fumes. They stopped paying for all of their regular work that was going on rebuilding lots of places in America so they could give out their emergency aid to the east coast. They had no choice because we didn't give them enough money to make it through the year. I sent a letter to the leadership on this issue months ago because I know this; I am the chair of the committee. They keep saying to me: Senator, we are running out of money. I have been saying this--and I will present letters for the Record. Anyone who follows this knows this is true. This is not a manufactured crisis. This whole issue started when Representative Cantor decided that the way to fix this problem was to cut something in the budget and have to offset something in order for us to move forward, and then the gears stopped. It was like he just threw a wrench in the gears. Everything was going along quite smoothly. I know the American people are tired of the fighting and the name calling. I am, proudly, a centrist Democrat. I am still proud to say that. I have negotiated on probably every major deal that has been done--or compromised. I have been a part of almost every one for the 15 years I have been here. Some people don't like that about me, but I think that is good, and I am proud of it. I most certainly am not one of the ones who like to start a partisan brawl just for the heck of it. This is an important principle. The principle is this: Should Americans have to scramble to find offsets while the water is rising and the wind is blowing, when we don't require the same for emergencies overseas? We don't scramble to find offsets when a famine happens or a drought hits in Africa. We send money because that is what Americans do. Yet our people are calling for help at home and somehow--this is on the tea party agenda--before we can send them help we have to find an offset in Washington, an offset that everybody agrees to. Good luck. There are very few things here that two people agree to, let alone 535. If I had to do that, Mr. President, for Katrina and Rita, I don't know what I would have done. We are in a crisis. It may not be for everybody in the country right now, like it could be next week if the government shuts down, which it will not. We are going to find a way forward. But for these people it has been a crisis for several months. Bridge projects are shut down, libraries are shut down, and all the workers have been sent home or told not to expect a paycheck on this project. I don't know how many people will continue to work without receiving a paycheck. Maybe some people are still doing that. No. 2, we sent $1.3 trillion to Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 7 years--$1.3 trillion, not requiring one offset. Yet people in Florida are looking for help as are people in Vermont, and the Cantor doctrine says we have to find cuts in the budget. The Senator from Florida wants to speak. I want to be accurate in this debate, so I want to correct one thing I said. I said that never before have we offset FEMA money. My staff corrected me and said that one time in history, in recent memory, we did that for a small amount of FEMA money when President Clinton was the President because the Republicans had just come into power and argued about it back then. President Clinton, to his credit, found an offset they could agree to, and they did it. I don't think we should make this a routine exercise. It is not right for the flood victims or the taxpayers in the long run. Eventually, we will find a way to pay for these things, so let's reason together. Harry Reid sent us a reasonable compromise. The House should focus on this and try to take this compromise--if we can. It has been worth discussing because this is going to go into law one way or the other, and we are going to be living with the consequences. Those of us on the gulf coast who are in hurricane alley--I will show this chart, and it is quite disturbing. I will put it up again. This chart shows from 1851 to 2008. These lines represent every hurricane that has hit the lower 48. These large colored lines are Katrina, Gustav, Rita, and Ike. Most certainly, along the east coast people should know that this is just what happened. There was also a tornado chart that showed where the tornadoes hit, and there was one for the earthquakes. Every part of the country at some time experiences a disaster. We don't have to run up to Washington and gut the education programs overnight or gut our transportation programs overnight or try to call a special committee meeting to find out where we can come up with $1 billion by Friday to send to FEMA. We send it, and then we make those decisions over time. It is the way any corporation would operate, it is the way any family would operate, and it is the way our government should operate. Again, if we take this Cantor doctrine to its ridiculous extreme, we would have firetrucks screaming down the street while a house is on fire, and before they turn the hose on, they would ask the family to come out and they would ask them what they should cut in the city budget before they turned on the water. We can only make reasonable assumptions about what disasters there will be--their frequency and their rate. If we go under a little bit, then we have to provide the money until we can fix it in the long run. I am going to yield the floor. I thank the Members for engaging in this debate.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from New York, who has been a strong clarion voice on this issue. He has helped to crystalize what this is about. He is exactly right. I want to read into the Record, as the Senator from Illinois comes to speak, from several articles around the country that have editorialized exactly on the position that he ended on, and it is the point of this whole debate--whether we accept the Cantor doctrine, which requires an offset before we send help to people who are stranded or flooded out or in an ice storm or in the middle of a tornado or whether we have to have Washington cut the budget first. The central Pennsylvania newspaper said it well. They said: It is easy to generalize and say our government spends too much money and needs to cut all government programs. Then a tornado wipes out Joplin, MO, or a hurricane called Irene slams into the East Coast destroying countless homes and lives in Vermont or a flood devastates communities in Derry Township, Middletown and Harrisburg, PA. It is then we count on our local, state and federal governments for help and, in particular, for the federal government to support us with disaster relief. We have certainly seen this year through wind, fire and rain--the ice could be next to come--that FEMA's financial efforts cannot be tied to some sort of Congressional pay-by-the-disaster system. We cannot decide with each new catastrophe where we will find money, stripping funds from transportation this month and education the next. That is what this debate is about. We did not choose this fight. It was started by Representative Eric Cantor. There was a moment in time when he said we must offset this disaster. Some of us stood right up and said: No, we will not. I see the Senator from Illinois, but I sent four letters as the chair of this committee as early as February. Please don't let anyone in the press criticize me for waiting until the last minute. February 16, 2011, I sent a letter saying: Heads up. This is going to be a problem. Not many people listened. Then I sent another letter in March, then I sent another letter in May, and then I sent another letter May 11. We are now in September. One can accuse me of a lot of things. I most certainly make mistakes, but not being ahead of this one is not one of them. I knew this was going to happen. Here we are. This was not started by Harry Reid. It was not started by Leader Durbin from Illinois. It was started when Eric Cantor said, despite the fact that we sent $1.3 trillion to Iraq and Afghanistan to build cities and communities and houses in Iraq and Afghanistan, we cannot send any money to Vermont or to New Hampshire or to Virginia-- his own State, which is mind-boggling to me--until we find a program to cut. Then they cut a program that has bipartisan support that is creating jobs in America. I will yield the floor. The Senator from Illinois always has some interesting things to add to the debate, and I appreciate his support and leadership.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I continue to be amazed at his energy, in terms of leadership and what he does in Washington and his home State of Illinois. I appreciate the comments he has brought to this debate. I wish to say the vote we are going to have in a few minutes is going to decide whether we are going to change the way we help disaster victims. We are either going to do it the way we have pretty much always done it--when a disaster strikes, the Federal Government steps up; we are there. We encourage our Governors and mayors and local elected leaders to roll up their sleeves, work side by side with people, and take care of business, basically, get people out of harm's way, move them into shelters, comfort them, console them, keep families together, and then work with them in weeks and months and sometimes it takes years to get these communities back up and operating--or we are going to adopt the Republican sort of tea party/Cantor doctrine, which is ``my way or the highway,'' which is why we are having this debate a week before the end of the fiscal year, which says we are going to have to find money with each new catastrophe. We are going to have to find money by stripping money from either education or transportation or, in this particular case, stripping money from a program that creates private sector jobs--a public/private partnership, a lending program that helps new and emerging companies get the financial wherewithal to manufacture new automobiles in America and puts Americans to work. In fact, what is amazing about this offset that the Republicans have chosen to have this whole debate about is, it is an offset of a program that is supported by Republicans themselves. In fact, many Republicans in the Senate and in the House have actually sent letters--and I am going to read one or two of those right now--to the Secretary of Energy asking for funding out of this exact program for creating jobs in one State, which is a legitimate thing to do. It is done all the time. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is then turning around and coming to Washington and voting to gut this program under the guise that we need to do so to help disaster victims. I have a number of letters and I ask unanimous consent they be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I am going to read a letter written by the Members of the Indiana delegation. At least three Republicans have signed this letter: Senator Lugar from Indiana, Representative Dan Burton from Indiana, and Representative Mike Pence from Indiana. They wrote, on June 25: We write today to highlight the remarkable automotive innovation occurring in Indiana--and the tremendous potential for Hoosiers to lead our national effort in transforming the automotive sector. Indiana is uniquely qualified and prepared to lead the nation and the world in the development and commercialization of advanced battery, electric drive vehicles and other innovative transportation technologies. Hoosiers are committed to reaching our national goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and they are actively researching, developing, and manufacturing technologies that will be cleaner and create lasting jobs. The Hoosier state is the most manufacturing-intensive state in the union and is home to some 700 automotive related companies which employ more than 130,000 workers. Moreover, Indiana's broad diversity of domestic and international companies, its long experience manufacturing light duty, heavy duty, recreational and military vehicles, and its rich legacy pioneering the development of the electric power train makes the state a national hub for automatic automotive technology development. They go on and on. They say: Indiana already is home to a number of established and emerging battery and electric vehicle technology companies. . . . In addition, Indiana's world-class research universities including Purdue University, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, and the University of Notre Dame have formed an active research and development partnership. The letter goes on to say what a great job they are doing. ``We strongly encourage you to give full consideration to the innovative applications for federal investment made by Indiana companies'' through the electric drive vehicle battery component manufacturing initiative and the $25 billion Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program. That is the exact loan program Republicans from Indiana have written to ask funding for that they are now eliminating to pay for disasters. If this were a program that was not working, if this were a program that did not create jobs in America, if this were a program that Republicans privately and publicly acknowledged was not a good program, that would be one thing. But to run home and cut ribbons, to say you are creating jobs in Indiana or in New York or in Illinois and then run up here and cut the program, claiming you have to do so to help disaster victims when it is just about unprecedented in the history of our country, there is something terribly wrong. We do not need to be destroying jobs; we need to be creating them. We do not need to be making excuses about how we do not have to help victims of disasters; we need to be helping them. I guess I take this a little bit personally because while the rest of the Members sort of say things like: Well, FEMA is not really running out of money, and they can probably make it until Friday--there is some talk about that going on. There are some technical ways that could be done--I wish to remind everyone here that this is already an emergency for over 400 projects that were shut down weeks ago. If you are a small business owner who had a subcontract building a road in Alaska, it is an emergency for you because you were shut down and you cannot make payroll. You already bought the supplies to build the bridge, and nobody on the Republican side is caring about your crisis. FEMA is technically out of money as we speak. The only way they are continuing to operate is because they have shut down these projects. This is the third time in the last 6 years, to my knowledge, that projects have been shut down across the country. Why is that right? Many of those projects are in Louisiana, some of them are in Mississippi, and some of them now are in Joplin. If you were in a disaster that happened a few years ago, because Republicans either will not budget the money or will not budget enough money or every time you go to ask for a dime, they require an offset somewhere else--truly what is happening is disaster victims in other parts of the country are subsidizing this foolishness. This does not fall equally on the backs of Democrats and Republicans. I know people are tired of hearing it, but it does not. Harry Reid did not start this fight. Mary Landrieu did not start this fight. Dick Durbin did not start this fight. Eric Cantor of Virginia, a Republican leader, started this fight when he said: We cannot fund the 2011 disasters without an offset. So in this whole debate, what they have done is shut down projects in Louisiana and Mississippi despite the fact that I have said: We don't really need an offset. We have made arrangements in next year's budget. It is unprecedented, Representative Cantor. Your State is going to be hurt as well. He doesn't seem to care. But I do care, and I do think it is worth talking about. I don't know if we will win this battle today. I don't know if we will win this vote this afternoon. I am not the whip. I do not count the votes. All I do is keep my eyes on the people who are in disasters because I have had to for the years I have been, unfortunately, the Senator from Louisiana who has been through the worst natural disaster our country has ever known. I have walked through too many destroyed neighborhoods, I have cried with too many people, and I have watched what they go through. For me, this is not a simple change. This is a major change which we cannot afford in this country and which our people do not deserve. We cannot have a budget meeting every time there is a disaster in America and try to run up here and in 30 minutes or 2 days or a week decide what program we are going to slash that everybody can agree to so we can send help, whether it is to West Virginia or to Florida or to Michigan or Louisiana. That is no way to run a government. Now tea party people and Republicans want to bring change to Washington. I welcome some of that change but not this. This is not a change we need. This is not a good policy for America. I am not opposed to change. I am adaptable. I am a centrist. I am a moderate. I can listen to what Republicans and Democrats say, and I am proud of that. It is a strength. I consider it a strength, not a weakness. This is not a change I can support lightly, and that is what this fight is about. We may be forced to change, but if we are, I want the people of America to know this was Eric Cantor's idea. This is on the tea party agenda. I do not think it should be on America's agenda. Exhibit 1 Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, June 25, 2009. Hon. Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, James Forrestal Building, Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Chu: We write today to highlight the remarkable automotive innovation occurring in Indiana--and the tremendous potential for Hoosiers to lead our national effort in transforming the automotive sector. Indiana is uniquely qualified and prepared to lead the nation and the world in the development and commercialization of advanced battery, electric drive vehicles and other innovative transportation technologies. Hoosiers are committed to reaching our national goal of reducing ow dependence on foreign oil, and they are actively researching, developing and manufacturing technologies that will be cleaner and create lasting jobs. The Hoosier state is the most manufacturing intensive state in the union and is home to some 700 automotive related companies which employ more than 130,000 workers. Moreover, Indiana's broad diversity of domestic and international companies, its long experience manufacturing light duty, heavy duty, recreational and military vehicles, and its rich legacy pioneering the development of the electric power train makes the state a national hub for automotive technology development. Indiana's proven experience positions it to be the leader in next-generation batteries and electric drive vehicles. Hoosier companies like Delco Remy and later Delphi were ahead of their time in producing batteries systems for advanced technology vehicles, leading the development of the battery system for the EVI, GM's first and only electric vehicle. Indiana already is home to a number of established and emerging battery and electric vehicle technology companies. Our state is- also a national hub for battery systems development and testing for the defense and national security industry with unique assets like the U.S. Navy's Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, which has forged strong partnerships around energy storage technologies with several top defense contractors across Indiana. In addition, Indiana's world-class research universities including Purdue University, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and the University of Notre Dame have formed an active research and development partnership around next-generation battery technology and are working with a network of industry partners to accelerate technology transfer. These university partners are also collaborating with Indiana's statewide community colleges to develop new degree programs and curriculums needed to prepare the Hoosier workforce for advanced battery technology jobs. Most importantly, Hoosiers have committed themselves to the goal of transforming our transportation sector. Diverse stakeholders recognize that no one company has all the answers and that success requires collaboration and partnership that crosses multiple industry boundaries. Hoosier companies have forged a number of joint partnerships involving Fortune 500 companies, innovative start-ups anti leading research institutions to leverage their assets and accelerate the development of advanced battery and energy technology solutions. Likewise, community support is palpable, with a steady stream of interest from local governments, schools, universities and non-government groups. We strongly believe that Indiana is the smart choice for investment of grants, loans and other federal support for the research, development and commercialization of advanced automotive technologies and fuels. In particular, several Hoosier companies have applied for existing grants and loans through the $2 billion Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative and the $25 billion Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program. As you evaluate these proposals, we encourage you to remember the strong multiplier effect that will come by investing in a state already committed and with a broad base of support and experience. Indiana's automotive and energy technology industries are uniquely positioned to participate in these new programs. Their experience, technical expertise, and commitment to collaboration would provide significant leverage for any federal investment. Investing in Hoosier innovation will make America safer, make our economy stronger and make our environment cleaner. We strongly encourage you to give full consideration to the innovative applications for federal investment made by Indiana companies and institutions to accelerate the commercialization of high performance, safe, and cost effective advanced battery technologies. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard G. Lugar, Evan Bayh, Dan Burton, Peter J. Visclosky, Steve Buyer, Mark E. Souder, Mike Pence, Baron P. Hill, Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, Andre Carson.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I see the Senator from West Virginia.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor and will spend the next 15 minutes or so, maybe even longer, to support the arguments made just recently, and I might say eloquently and passionately, by the Senator from Michigan, who was one of the key architects of this very successful job creation program that the Republican House leadership is trying to kill. That is, in large measure, what this debate this weekend and through next week is about. That is why almost unanimously Democrats in the Senate are supporting our Democratic caucus in the House as we try to bring this debate forward so the American people can understand at this time and hopefully give their voice of support for what we are trying to do--keep government operating and keep jobs being created in this country. It is a struggle. We know we are not creating as many as we would like. But one of the programs that is creating thousands of jobs and has broad support in America--and I am going to read the groups supporting it in just a minute. For some reason, the Republican leader in the House, Eric Cantor, decided last week--even as the winds were affecting his district and Hurricane Irene was challenging the east coast, a portion of the country he represents--he decided we needed to find an offset so we could send money to his district and to other districts across the country and picked this program. They couldn't have picked a worse one because this program is actually working. It has already demonstrated it has revitalized communities. In addition, it is a program that created jobs, so several dozen Republican House Members have sent private letters to the Secretary of Energy asking for the money to go back to their districts, but publicly they want to gut the program. Democrats have decided to bring this to the attention of the American public. I have those letters, and I am going to submit them for the Record. How is it that dozens of Republican leaders wrote private letters-- which are a public record--but they do not issue them to the press. They sent them to the Secretary. Anyone can get copies of them. I did this morning and I have them. They are private letters to the Secretary, asking for this program to loan money to a public-private partnership to create jobs in their district. Then they go home and they talk about their efforts to create jobs and they come back to Washington and try to gut the program under the guise that they need the money to help disaster victims. That is what this debate is about. That is why the Democrats are not--at least at this point, and I hope over the weekend and through next week--going to give in to that nonsense and hypocrisy. I hope the President and the White House will fight hard, along with the Democrats. I hope some of the Republicans who have signed these letters will think twice when this vote comes up again. I hope the press is reading these letters and asking these Republicans, whose signatures are on these letters, one question: How is it possible that they sent a letter to the Secretary asking for a loan to support job creation in their district and then, at the same time, stand on the Senate floor and vote to gut the same program and then go back home and claim they are helping to create jobs in America? I am going to start with the first letter, which is the most interesting to me. It is from Dr. Darrell Issa. He is a Member of Congress. He actually chairs an oversight committee. I think his district is in California. He is a Republican from California. He is a very powerful Member of the House. I am going to read his whole letter. I write to express my support for Aptera Motors' application for a loan under the Department of Energy's 136 Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program. Otherwise known as the ATVMIP. The program he voted last night to eliminate. The same one. Funding will allow Aptera to establish U.S. manufacturing facilities for the commercial production of its plug-in and hybrid electric cars. Aptera Motors plans to purchase and equip manufacturing facilities to begin commercial-scale production of its energy electric vehicles. Awarding this opportunity to Aptera Motors will greatly assist a leading developer of electric vehicles in my district. Electric vehicle initiatives, like Aptera's, will aid U.S. long-term energy goals by shifting away from fossil fuels and using viable renewable energy sources like plug-in electric energy. Additionally, Aptera's vehicles will reduce dependence on foreign oil and enhance energy security. Aptera's project will also promote domestic job creation through California as well as in other States. Unlike many other electric vehicles, Aptera's energy efficient electric vehicles have a range of over 100 miles per charge and the possibility to become one of the most energy efficient vehicles in the world. A loan to Aptera will help accelerate the move from gasoline-powered vehicles to cleaner electric vehicles. I urge you to give Aptera's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program funding application full consideration. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me-- or amazingly-- my press assistant. Normally, when I write these letters, I say if I can be of further assistance, please contact me and my energy assistant. The energy leg person usually handles this. But in this case he said we should call his press secretary. I guess the press secretary could go back to his district and claim he is doing a great job creating programs in California. Maybe the press actually writes that Darryl Issa, Republican leader, is promoting manufacturing in California. This is what he says in his district, and this is the letter he sends to the Secretary. However, when he was on the floor of the House last night, he voted to gut this program. That is what this debate is about. I am looking forward to having it. The next letter I am going to read--and I am going to do this all week, so I hope the press gets ready to ask these Republican leaders how they could possibly have the gall to hold press opportunities in their districts promising people they are helping them create jobs and then come back to Washington and cut the rug out from underneath their feet with the bogus excuse that they have to come up with $1 billion, when the real need is only $175 million. I checked with Craig Fugate, a very good friend of mine. I am the chair of his committee. I talk to him all the time. When the real need for FEMA in 2011 is $175 million, but under the guise of having to provide $1 billion, they want to gut this program that is creating jobs, and they themselves have asked for these loans to be made in their district. This is the next letter signed by several Members, and I am going to submit their names for the Record. There are several Republicans. I am sorry, but from this letter I am not able to determine which ones are Republicans and which ones are Democrats. I ask unanimous consent that theses letters be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you. This is to Secretary Chu. The State of California has traditionally assumed a leading role in fighting global warming and working to eliminate our dependence on foreign sources of oil. We want to commend you for also taking effective steps towards achieving these goals. As part of this effort, the Department of Energy's Electric Drive and Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative is currently reviewing submissions for the construction of new lithium ion battery facilities in the United States. This initiative is a huge step forward in our efforts to improve our environment, eliminate our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and create a modern green-collar workforce here in the United States. Quallion, an innovative American company located in California, can be a valuable partner in your efforts because it is ready today to directly support President Obama's goal to have one million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015. Quallion is a world leader in the development of customized lithium ion batteries for medical, military, aerospace and vehicle applications. If Quallion is successful in its bid for grants through the Department of Energy's Electric Drive and Vehicle Battery Component Manufacturing Initiative, it is set to immediately execute the construction of state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities to produce-- Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Quallion projects that with this grant funding the proposed facility could be fully operational by 2011, and could produce more that 20,000 lithium ion batteries each year. This is the killer. In addition, Quallion projects this funding will create more than 2,300 new and long-term jobs nationwide. This is the program that Representative Cantor decided to use as an offset so he could fool the American people into believing we need to find an offset to offset $1 billion of expenses, when we only have $175 million in expenses. So they write the letters privately to the Secretary asking for funding to go with their districts to create jobs and then they come to Washington and they gut the program for no reason. This is another letter, and it is a little close to home. This is a letter I wrote. I was joined by my colleague Senator Vitter, Republican from Louisiana, and my Republican counterpart Rodney Alexander, who represents the district in my State. We sent this letter on December 21. We are writing to reiterate our strong support for Next Autoworks Company's loan application under the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program and inquire about the status of the application. Next Autoworks resubmitted a revised application in May 2010 that was almost immediately declared substantially complete and expeditiously reviewed for technical and financial merit. We appreciate the Department's work to move the application through several critical stage-gates over the past several months. Next Autoworks has the ability to transform communities in Louisiana by bringing critical economic growth in jobs to our state and region. As you know, the company plans to re-equip a former Guide Corp Plant in Monroe, LA, that was shuttered in 2006 and establish a production facility that would bring approximately 1,400 direct jobs and an additional 1,800 indirect jobs to Northeast Louisiana. In addition, the project will create thousands of jobs at supply facilities across the U.S. The State of Louisiana and local communities have already demonstrated their commitment by offering this company $82 million in grants, $128 million in employee training services, and an estimated $33.8 million in tax abatements to support the project. This is how strongly our Republican Governor and Republican legislature in Louisiana feel about this project, that we have put up State and local money to see if we could attract this loan from the Federal Government to get this going. It is signed by my colleague Senator Vitter and signed by my friend and colleague Representative Alexander, who represents this district. This is one of our No. 1 economic development projects in the State of Louisiana, and what did the Representative do last night? He voted to gut the program. I have dozens of other letters, but I am going to pause because I think I have made my point. I am going to read every one of these letters that I have between now and when this debate ends. I just pray the press will do their job and ask the Members who voted and sent these letters why did they send a letter to the Secretary asking for the program and then turn around and gut the program when they came to Washington. I would like to ask for 5 minutes more.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The other point is this: This is not just an issue for one State or two States. That is why Democrats believe strongly about this because this is about the whole country. The President has declared disasters this year in 48 of the 50 States. Maybe if we just had had disasters in one or two places and they were not that terrible, we would figure out some way. The problem is we have disasters in all States, and I am going to show what these pictures portray because they are heartwrenching. This is New Jersey. This is someone's household belongings. This is a home that is completely uninhabitable. I am not sure how high the water is, but this is what a home looks like after a flood. I can visualize what it looked like after Katrina and smell, even more than the vision. This is what New Jersey looked like a couple weeks ago. This water has gone down, but this is Bound Brook, NJ. We do not know much about this town. We hear about Trenton. We hear about New York. I have never been to Bound Brook, NJ, but I am sure it is a lovely place and it needs our help. So what does Representative Cantor do? He comes to Washington, he looks at places such as this, and he decides out of the blue sky that he is now going to assert his power by demanding an offset for disaster funding when it is not necessary. The offset is way more than what is required. Again, it is an offset that is creating jobs in America. I wish to say something else about the danger of requiring offsets and respond directly to what minority leader Mitch McConnell said earlier today. I think he said something akin to the reason we want to require offsets is because we have to stop doing things the same way around here, and just because we have never required them in the past, that is no reason to not require them now. I understand that. I am kind of a person who likes to do things differently. I like to change things. I wish to remind the leader that not one Republican, to my mind, either in the Senate or the House, ever asked for 5 minutes to debate $1 to offset war or rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish to put up this chart. This is from 2001, so this is a chart that shows--let's say the last year. I think it is important for the public to understand not just today but 10 years. If we were to chart, which we have done here, a lot of this supplemental spending, emergency spending and disaster spending--these are not for just natural disasters, these are for emergencies. For example, when we went to war in Iraq, it was an emergency. When we went to war in Afghanistan, it was an emergency. When we had the avian flu, that was an emergency, not a disaster. So this is disasters and emergencies. Let's take this red bar here. It says Iraq and Afghanistan, $79 billion. Do my colleagues see this zero here? That is zero offset. So $79 billion and no offset. This one is war money. This is tsunami money that we actually sent to--remember we had the tsunami in Indonesia, and we sent some money over there. Did Eric Cantor come to the floor and say we need to offset the money? No. So we sent that money, and less than 2 percent of it was offset. Here is Iraq and Afghanistan, and none of it was offset--$87.6 billion. So I think disaster victims in his own district and around the country are saying: So why are we now in this debate trying to find an offset we really don't need for a program that really works? That is a good question. If we want to find an offset, we should find another program. The only offset required is $175 million, but that makes too much sense. So I want the Republican leadership to know they are risking a very important debate. I don't believe we should even talk about shutting the government down. People are tired of that. We just went through a challenge to the whole economy with the debt ceiling limit. Enough is enough. Democrats should not, in my view, cave on this point. We should fight and get them to compromise which is reasonable. In addition to these arguments, I will put up a chart that is hard to look at, but I think for the gulf coast Republicans and Republican Senators, it is a very important chart. One of the dangers of requiring an offset is, No. 1, like right now, it is virtually impossible to get 535 Members to all agree on an offset. So what happens is, if we demand to have one, we keep the victims waiting while we debate. It also doesn't help to choose an offset that is very popular on one side. There might be a program that we could over the next couple of months decide is unnecessary, but we can't do that within a few days of the disaster. It takes time. They should know that. Let me explain what this is for the gulf coast Senators. I had this done after Katrina just to show the vulnerability of the gulf coast. All of these red lines that look like spaghetti and then these bigger lines--the blue and the yellow and the orange--these are all hurricanes that have actually hit the United States between 1851 and 2008. It is a very frightening chart. One of the reasons I think Senator Rubio from Florida is voting with us is because he has seen a picture of this chart. That is how many hurricanes have hit Florida since 1851. He is most certainly aware from his State that if he takes the position that we have to require an offset to fund disasters, his job as a Senator will be very, very difficult, even more challenging than it is today, because the next time a hurricane hits Florida, he is going to have to go sit down with the budget folks and find out--before he can offer his people the $2,000 in emergency aid, the $30,000 that helps them, the loans through the Small Business Committee, the loans to get their businesses back-- he is going to have to come up here and negotiate to find an offset. Last night, I watched the debate on the House side. I thought our Democratic colleagues did a beautiful job, and I wish to thank them for the beautiful way they spoke. I didn't see one Republican come to the floor. They had just one of their leaders talking last night when the vote happened. Maybe they are a little embarrassed, and they should be because I am going to read the letters they sent. Also, the gulf coast Republicans I think really have to think about this because these storms, as we can see--my State and the people I represent are in Hurricane Alley. This is Hurricane Rita, the blue, which is one of the most devastating storms. That is why it is a thicker line. Hurricane Gustav is the orange, Hurricane Ike is the dark pink, and Hurricane Katrina is the yellow. All of these storms hit us and wrecked the gulf coast. Let me say what happened after that. Haley Barbour, the Governor of Mississippi, who is still the Governor of Mississippi, came up here when George Bush was the President and got $4.6 billion without one penny of offset, and he got that within 60 days of the storm. I am going to repeat that. Governor Haley Barbour, who is still the Governor of Mississippi, came to Washington, met with the President, and left with $4.6 billion to rebuild Mississippi. The Congress gave Louisiana $5.4 billion, for which I was very grateful. However, we had 70 percent of the damage but only got 55 percent of the money, so we were shortchanged. I had to work for years. I finally got that squared away. But this is why gulf coast Republicans and Republican Senators from the gulf coast should think not twice but three times before they vote to require an offset. I am just saying I am not going to forget this vote, because I chair this committee, and if my colleagues vote to require an offset and another storm hits their State, then the responsibility is on their shoulders to tell their people: I am sorry, I can't help you until I go to Washington and find an offset. Maybe it will get so ridiculous--and I am going to call this the Cantor doctrine--maybe it will get so ridiculous that Eric Cantor will tell all the people in America--there was a cartoon in the newspapers about this. I am having it blown up because it is really sad, but it is actually funny. There is a woman sitting on top of her roof because her house is completely flooded. She has a phone, and she calls FEMA and FEMA says: We can't rescue you right now. We are looking for an offset. So maybe the new Cantor Republican model of ``pick yourself up by your bootstraps and swim away on your own'' will actually really be put into practice because I think that is what they want because before that woman can be rescued, before the debris can be removed, that woman is going to have to sit down at the table with her husband and kids in a broken-down house or trailer and suggest some offsets to send to their Congressman before we can send them help. That is not right. That is what this debate is about. Now, do we eventually have to pay for these disasters? Absolutely. The Wall Street Journal editorialized against me the other day, so let me answer them. They said: There goes Senator Landrieu; she doesn't think she has to pay for anything. That is not true. I believe right now we are paying for the war in Iraq, and it is very tough to pay for that. We are finding a way in the supercommittee. But we didn't have to find an offset before we could let our troops march in. We didn't have them standing on the border, saying: Stand right here. Hold your fire. Eric Cantor is working on an offset for you. We sent the troops in, we let the bombers go, and we will figure out how to pay for it later. So I am telling the Republicans in the House that they better think very carefully about this vote. Senator Reid has sent a very good compromise. He said: We will give up our number, we will take your number on FEMA, but we are not going to take this offset. Now, I still think and I want to say for the record, as the chairman of this committee, that 3.65 is not going to be enough to get us through all of next year, but it will get us through the next couple of weeks and months--not months, maybe weeks. The government won't shut down, and FEMA will have money to operate, as the leader said. It is not ideal. It is not what is in our bill, which is the best, which is a $6.5 billion level, which is funding not just FEMA, but it will fund the Corps of Engineers, community development, agriculture. What the House is doing only funds FEMA. It doesn't give any money to the poor. It doesn't give any money to community development. It doesn't give any money to the farmers. So if you are sitting out there looking at your farm with your crops ruined, please don't think the House of Representatives is doing one thing to help you because they are not. So I have given any number of reasons why this is an important debate to have. There is no guarantee Democrats will win, but every now and then it is a good thing to stand up for principle, and I believe this is a principle worth standing up for and worth fighting for. I hope the press does their job over the next several days and asks these Republicans: How in the world can you send a private letter asking for funding and then come back to Washington and gut the same program? And if the press does their job and if the people in our country will ask those same questions, maybe a few of these Republican leaders will compromise the way they should. Either give up the offset or come up with a different one. Come up with another one that is much less harmful. Let me end with this. We have three letters that I will submit for the Record. If people can't take my word for any of this, they can listen to the chamber of commerce. What did the chamber of commerce say? I will submit their letter. This is the wrong thing to do, the chamber says. Don't eliminate this program. It is creating jobs in America. So the Republicans, I know, don't really like to listen to what I say a lot, but they should listen to the chamber of commerce. The National Manufacturing Association--a very conservative group-- sent the Republicans a letter saying: Bad deal. Don't do it. They did it anyway. I just got a letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. All of the mayors in the country, Republicans and Democrats, sent a letter to the House saying: Don't do this. And they did it anyway. So the only people more powerful and the only group more powerful than the chamber, than NAM, than the mayors, are the people themselves. So I hope this weekend the people will say to their representatives: Don't cut out a program that is creating jobs. Don't require disaster victims to have an offset. Let's keep the government operating, and let's find a way to pay for this over time together and get this deficit under control. I am willing to do that. As the chair of this committee, I promise them we can do better budgeting in the future. Nobody did it really great in the past. I am willing to do that. I am willing to work with them in any way. But let's not go down this dangerous and inappropriate road. Exhibit 1 Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 14, 2009. Hon. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wanted to get here a little earlier this morning, but I was chairing a panel and was unable to do so. I know I only have 10 or 15 minutes or so before the Senator from Texas speaks, so I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about our disaster recovery and the debate going on between the House and the Senate about that. Yesterday, the House was unable to find the votes to pass the continuing resolution, and one of the issues of debate is how and when to fund our disasters. I know there are a lot of people following this debate, so I want to bring everyone up to date on a couple of recent developments. First, the Chamber of Commerce has submitted a letter to us, strongly objecting to the House using the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program as an offset to fund disasters. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, it is the position of the Democrats--and some Republicans have taken this position--that this is not the right way to go about funding disasters, by requiring offsets. It is not necessary, it has hardly been done in the past--it has been, but it is not routine--and it is not recommended for a number of reasons I have tried to explain on the floor. But adding to that debate now is the Chamber of Commerce saying that is not the right offset to use if you are going to insist on finding one. Secondly, I want to push back on the argument the House position will provide enough funding to get us through the next couple of weeks. That is only partially correct, and I want to be very clear. When people say, well, we can go ahead and pass the 2.65 they have in for 2012, which is an extension of last year's number, and then the extra billion they put in for 2011, and that will sort of get us by the next couple of weeks, let me be clear: It will get FEMA by. It will fill up the disaster relief fund, which is running on fumes today. We are now down to $227 million in the fund, the lowest balance in recent memory. It will provide a small amount of money relative to the core budget--$226 million. But I want to be clear: There is no money in the House approach for agriculture, there is no money in the House approach for community development block grants--zero--and there is no money for the economic development grants that chambers of commerce all over the country, in areas and counties that have been hard hit, use to help their communities and their businesses get back. I just left a small business hearing, and the fact is, after a disaster, whether it is in North Carolina or California or Florida or Louisiana--and this is very sad, particularly in these economic times-- about 70 percent of small businesses never make it back. So at a time when we are trying to create jobs in America, help Americans get back to work and strengthen their businesses, the House wants to pass a continuing resolution with zero money for these economic development grants that chambers of commerce and other conservative organizations, as well as nonpolitical organizations, believe are very effective. So, please, if you are going to vote for the House position, don't go home and pat yourself on the back and say you took care of disaster victims. You might have filled up the FEMA fund temporarily, but you have not left here doing the job I think we need to do. The third point I want to push back on--and I know my time is limited--is this comment last night by several Members of the House that we have offset disaster relief before. Yes, we have, but not, to my knowledge, in the immediate aftermath of the storms. As these things have gone on over years--for instance, 4 years after Katrina we were trying to find money to rebuild one of our big military bases that collapsed, so we funded that through Defense and we found an offset. But that wasn't within the first couple of weeks of Katrina. That was after 4 years, and we couldn't find the money and we really wanted to find it. So there are ways you can offset sometimes in the distant future. I am going to remind people that after Katrina, in the first 3 weeks, the Federal Government funded $66 billion without an offset. After the collapse of the Twin Towers, we funded $40 billion, and sent that to New York after the collapse of the Twin Towers. After 2004, which was a very terrible year for Florida, this Congress sent $2 billion within a few weeks of four hurricanes hitting Florida. Had we not done that, that State would be in a very serious economic downturn now. It never could have recovered from four hurricanes in 1 year. They didn't hit Louisiana, they didn't hit Texas, they didn't hit Alabama. All four of them hit Florida. Did we bellyache about it? Did anyone say: Let's run up to Washington and find a $2 billion program that is not working and cut it out so we can go help the people in Florida? Absolutely not. We sent the money to Florida, and I know they were grateful for it. That might be one of the reasons Senator Rubio--who was not in the Senate then but now is--has voted for this position, because he knows. He remembers. I don't know what the House is going to do, and I most certainly don't think we need to shut the government down over this debate, but it is a very important debate to be having. I am proud to be leading the effort, along with many Democrats and some Republicans who are saying, in the aftermath of a year that was one of the worst on record, we do not need to find the offsets now. I hope the House will stand strong and beat back that position, because it is not right today, it is not going to be right tomorrow, and it is not right for the future. I just hope we can prevail. Later on, when we are looking to figure out how to pay for all this, we have time over the next year or year and a half or 2 or 3 or even 4 years as we work on moving our deficit down. All of this is going to have to be paid eventually. But I believe very strongly that we must not think it is OK to get into a pattern of, when disaster strikes, instead of opening shelters, instead of giving people immediate relief, the first thing the leadership of this country does is run to Washington and try to gut several other programs overnight or quickly or without thought before we can fund disasters. That is not the way we should operate. I thank the Chair for being very considerate and giving me this extra time. I thank my colleagues; I know others want to speak. Again, we have a whole document here, which I have shown before, of projects in all of our States that have been absolutely shut down because we have run out of money. The only programs that are being funded are real emergencies on the east coast. Everything else in Missouri, Louisiana, California, and Texas has been shut down to fund what is happening on the east coast. This is no way to run a railroad. Let's get disaster relief now. I hope the House will reconsider their position. I thank the chamber of commerce for coming out strongly to remove that offset. Again, let's see if we can find some money for USDA--Agriculture--community development block grants, and economic development block grants. If they insist on doing it 6 weeks at a time, which I don't agree with, at least put in a little more money for these other programs so we do not shut down, and we will come back here in 6 weeks or 8 weeks and figure it out. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.