September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6083 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

RECESS 

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 under the previous order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate stands 

in recess until 2:15 p.m. 

Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:24 p.m., 

recessed until 2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. W

f 

EBB). 

VETERANS JOBS CORPS ACT OF 

2012—MOTION TO PROCEED—Continued 

CLOTURE MOTION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the motion to invoke 

cloture. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move 

to bring to a close debate on the motion to 

proceed to calendar No. 476, S. 3457, a bill to 

require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 

establish a veterans jobs corps, and for other 

purposes. 

Harry Reid, John F. Kerry, Bernard 

Sanders, Kent Conrad, Al Franken, 

Tom Udall, Christopher A. Coons, Mark 

Begich, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, 

Amy Klobuchar, Thomas R. Carper, 

Robert Menendez, Jim Webb, Kirsten 

E. Gillibrand, Jeff Merkley, Jack Reed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 

call has been waived. 

The question is, Is it the sense of the 

Senate that debate on the motion to 

proceed to S. 3457, a bill to require the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a veterans job corps, and for other 

purposes, shall be brought to a close? 

The yeas and nays are mandatory 

under the rule. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the 

Senator from South Dakota (Mr. JOHNSON) and the Senator from Virginia 

(Mr. WARNER), are necessarily absent. 

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are 

necessarily absent: the Senator from 

Illinois (Mr. KIRK) and the Senator 

from Florida (Mr. RUBIO). 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 95, 

nays 1, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.] 

YEAS—95 

Akaka 

Alexander 

Ayotte 

Barrasso 

Baucus 

Begich 

Bennet 

Bingaman 

Blumenthal 

Blunt 

Boozman 

Boxer 

Brown (MA) 

Brown (OH) 

Burr 

Cantwell 

Cardin 

Carper 

Casey 

Chambliss 

Coats 

Coburn 

Cochran 

Collins 

Conrad 

Coons 

Corker 

Cornyn 

Crapo 

DeMint 

Durbin 

Enzi 

Feinstein 

Franken 

Gillibrand 

Graham 

Grassley 

Hagan 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Heller 

Hoeven 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Isakson 

Johanns 

Johnson (WI) 

Kerry 

Klobuchar 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Landrieu 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Lee 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lugar 

Manchin 

McCain 

McCaskill 

McConnell 

Menendez 

Merkley 

Mikulski 

Moran 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nelson (NE) 

Nelson (FL) 

Portman 

Pryor 

Reed 

Reid 

Risch 

Roberts 

Rockefeller 

Sanders 

Schumer 

Sessions 

Shaheen 

Shelby 

Snowe 

Stabenow 

Tester 

Thune 

Toomey 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Vitter 

Webb 

Whitehouse 

Wicker 

Wyden 

NAYS—1 

Paul 

NOT VOTING—4 

Johnson (SD) 

Kirk 

Rubio 

Warner 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

vote, the yeas are 95, the nays are 1. 

Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. 

VOTE EXPLANATION

∑ Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, a military career is one of the most honorable professions that our young men 

and women can pursue, and each of us 

is indebted to our veterans for their 

service. 

In this challenging economic time, it 

is more important than ever that we do 

what we can to connect well qualified 

veterans not just with jobs, but with 

careers. Our veterans demonstrate the 

skills, knowledge, leadership and professionalism that allow them to excel 

in almost any career field if they are 

given the right opportunities. 

How we treat this generation of military veterans who have served in Iraq 

and Afghanistan will influence the next 

generation of young men and women 

who might consider a career in our 

military. Unfortunately, we sometimes 

fall short when it comes to connecting 

veterans with jobs, and some veterans 

struggle to find careers that allow 

them to achieve their full potential. 

That is why I have been involved for 

several months now in a unique partnership of U.S. utility industry leaders 

to actively recruit and employ returning veterans. Troops to Energy helps 

our veterans successfully transition 

from military service into civilian careers in the utility and engineering industries. 

Some reports show that a staggering 

29 percent of veterans between the ages 

of 18 and 24 who served in Iraq or Afghanistan were unemployed last year. 

That is more than three times the national unemployment level and unacceptably high. 

We must do better. 

That is why I support the Veterans 

Jobs Corps Act of 2012, which will create additional opportunities for veterans to transition into career fields in 

which their military skills are readily 

transferrable. 

I am not able to vote on this important legislation today because I am attending the funeral services for a dear 

friend, but I want the record to reflect 

my strong support for this legislation 

and for our military men and women, 

their families, and our veterans.∑ 

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I note 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

FRANKEN). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

FINANCIAL CRISIS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, there 

has been, appropriately enough, a lot of 

discussion about our $16 trillion national debt and our $1 trillion Federal 

deficit. This is, in fact, an enormously 

important issue, and it is an issue that 

Congress must address. But it must address this crisis in a way that is fair to 

the middle class and to working families and our seniors and our kids. It is 

an issue that must be addressed, but it 

must be addressed fairly. 

When we talk about the deficit and 

the national debt, it is important to remember how we got to where we are 

today. We can simply go back 10 years 

or so to January 2001 when President 

Clinton left office and President Bush 

assumed the Presidency. At that particular moment in history, in January 

2001, I hope everybody remembers not 

only did this country have a $236 billion surplus, all of the projections for 

the future at that point were that that 

surplus was going to grow and grow 

and grow. In fact, at that point, this 

was one of the great debates taking 

place in Congress: What do we do with 

all of that money? How much do we 

give back in tax breaks? How much do 

we put into Social Security? That was 

the debate in January 2001. 

So before we discuss how we go forward in deficit reduction, with a trillion-dollar deficit, it is important to 

remember that, and it is important to 

remember how we got to where we are 

today. 

How we got to where we are today 

really, in a significant way, is not complicated. President Bush assumed office and within a few years we were 

fighting not just one war in Afghanistan but another war in Iraq. I hope the 

American people appreciate that many 

of the ‘‘deficit hawks’’—the people who 

tell us: Oh, gee, we have to cut Social 

Security and Medicare and Medicaid 

and nutrition and education; we have 

to cut, cut, cut, cut—when asked to 

pay for those wars had nothing to say. 

PAUL RYAN, Mr. Romney’s Vice Presidential nominee, chairman of the 

House Budget Committee, voted for the 

wars but forgot to pay for them. Nobody knows exactly how much these 

two wars will end up costing, but the 

guess is that by the time we take care 

of the last veteran 70 years from now, 

those wars may run up over $3 trillion, 

and we did not pay for them to the 

tune of one penny, all put on the credit 

card, all added to the deficit. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6084 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 11, 2012 

I find it somewhat unusual that 

many of our Republican ‘‘deficit 

hawks,’’ who stand here on the floor of 

the Senate every day and tell us how 

deeply concerned they are about the 

deficit all voted for huge tax breaks for 

millionaires and billionaires to the 

tune of $1 trillion over a 10-year period. 

Well, you do not give huge tax breaks 

to the rich and not offset it if you are 

serious about the deficit and not being 

hypocritical. Many of my Republican 

friends, during the Bush years, voted 

for the insurance company-written 

Medicare Part D prescription drug program, written by the insurance companies and the drug companies. It is 

going to cost us about $400 billion over 

a 10-year period. 

How did we pay for that program? 

Oh, I guess we did not pay for it at all. 

Our deficit hawk friends voted for that 

program, which was good politics, I 

guess. They forgot to pay for it. Add 

another $400 billion to the deficit. 

It is important to understand that 

today, in the midst of this horrendous 

recession, the issue is not just cuts, 

cuts, cuts. The issue is that right now, 

today, at 15.2 percent, revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product is 

lower than at any time in the last 60 

years. Because we deregulated Wall 

Street—Republicans wanted that; some 

Democrats wanted that—we allowed investor banks to merge with commercial banks, to merge with insurance 

companies, and, as a result of the illegal behavior on Wall Street, we were 

driven into this recession: mass unemployment, businesses go under, less tax 

revenue comes in, and, at 15.2 percent, 

revenue today as a percentage of GDP 

is the lowest it has been in 60 years. 

So those are some of the reasons that 

today we are experiencing a trilliondollar deficit and a $16 trillion national 

debt. My Republican friends will say: 

Well, you know, Bernie, be that as it 

may, yes, maybe we should have paid 

for the wars; maybe we should not have 

given tax breaks to billionaires when 

the rich are doing very well; maybe we 

should have paid for Medicare Part D; 

maybe we should have not deregulated 

Wall Street. But be that as it may, 

that is water over the dam. We are 

where we are right now. We have got to 

go forward on deficit reduction. 

So what are their ideas? Well, Mitt 

Romney has not been as clear as I 

think he should be about his ideas. But 

we do have a blueprint from our Republican friends in the Ryan budget. As 

you know, Congressman RYAN is chairman of the Budget Committee. He presented a budget. It was passed by the 

Republican House. Here is some of 

what the Republican budget is about. 

What the Republicans want to do is 

to make cuts to Social Security and to 

raise the retirement age. I want to say 

a word about Social Security right 

now. It is an issue I feel very strongly 

about. I think a lot of Americans do 

not know this. Social Security, because 

it is funded by the payroll tax and not 

the general Treasury, has not contributed one nickel to our deficits. Social 

Security today has a $2.7 trillion surplus and can pay out all benefits owed 

to all eligible Americans for the next 21 

years. In my view, it would be wrong, 

it would be deeply wrong, to consider 

cuts in Social Security as part of deficit reduction, because Social Security 

has not contributed a nickel to the deficit. But our Republican friends support cuts in Social Security. And many 

of them over a period of years want to 

move toward the privatization of Social Security. 

The Ryan budget would end Medicare 

as we know it in a 10-year period. What 

does that mean? What that means is 

that in 10 years, if you are 70 years of 

age, you would be given a voucher for 

$8,000, as I understand the number. 

Let’s assume that an individual, a 70- 

year-old, 75-year-old individual walks 

into a doctor’s office, and the doctor 

says: Joe, Mary, I am sorry to tell you 

this, but you are dealing with cancer. 

We are going to have to send you to a 

hospital. There are a whole lot of treatments you are going to have to undertake. Those treatments are going to 

cost you tens of thousands of dollars, if 

not more. That individual then goes to 

his or her insurance company and says: 

I have $8,000 to buy an insurance policy. 

What do you think that insurance 

agent is going to tell that individual 

when that person is facing tens and 

tens of thousands of dollars of medical 

bills? That insurance company’s function is to make money. They are not 

going to say: Oh, sure, give us the 

$8,000 so we can spend $50,000 on health 

care costs for you. It is not going to 

happen. That insurance company is 

going to say: There is the door. Try 

somebody else. That is going to happen 

to a whole lot of people. 

You can think of what the end of 

that story is. The end of the story is, if 

that family, that individual, does not 

have any money, he or she is going to 

go to their kids. If they do not have 

any money, the outcome is not going 

to be good, because that person simply 

will not have the treatment he or she 

needs. 

The Ryan budget proposes to cut $770 

billion over a 10-year period from Medicaid. That would result in at least 14 

million Americans losing their health 

insurance and would also cut nursing 

home assistance in half, threatening 

the long-term care of some 10 million 

senior citizens. Many people do not 

know that. Many people say: Well, you 

know, Medicaid is for the poor. It is 

certainly true that millions of low-income kids, deservedly, through the 

Children’s Health Insurance Program, 

get their health insurance with significant help from Medicaid and State 

money. But what people do not understand is that Medicaid is also a major 

contributor toward nursing home care. 

I want the average middle-class family to understand that if their mom or 

their pop develops Alzheimer’s or some 

other very difficult situation, cannot 

stay at home, cannot stay with their 

kids, has to be put in a nursing home, 

which is pretty expensive, understand 

that all over this country, Medicaid is 

putting money into making sure that 

elderly people can stay in nursing 

homes with some degree of dignity. 

But it is not just Social Security or 

Medicare and Medicaid our Republican 

friends are going after. In my State of 

Vermont, and I am sure in Minnesota, 

we have lower income working-class 

kids who no longer can go to college 

because college is too expensive. We 

have other young people who are graduating college $25,000, $50,000 in debt, 

unable to find jobs which help them 

pay off that debt. 

In my view, the Pell grant program, 

which is the major way in Washington 

we help low and moderate-income 

kids—I think that is too low; we are 

not helping enough kids with enough 

resources. But the Ryan budget would 

slash Pell grants by about 60 percent 

next year alone. So if you are a parent 

or you are a young person in college, 

that is how they intend to balance the 

budget. 

In the midst of this horrendous recession, older people, lower income people 

are struggling. It is very easy to forget 

here in the confines of the Senate, but 

there are millions of Americans today 

wondering how they are going to feed 

their kids tonight, who open the refrigerator, there is no food in that refrigerator, who depend upon food stamps. 

Half of the food stamp money goes to 

the elderly and children. They want to 

make devastating cuts in food stamps. 

My main point is pretty simple. The 

deficit is a serious issue and we have 

got to address it. But it would not only 

be immoral, it would be bad economic 

policy to move toward deficit reduction, to move toward a balanced budget, on the backs of millions and millions of seniors and children and working families who today, as a result of 

this terrible recession, are already 

struggling to keep their heads above 

water. You do not balance the budget 

on the backs of the most vulnerable 

people in this country. That is bad economic policy. That is immoral. There 

are ways to move forward which can 

achieve the same goals but without 

hurting people who are already in pain. 

What we do not talk about too much 

in Congress is who is winning and who 

is losing in the current American economy. I want to bring forth a few facts 

that I think the American people and 

my colleagues should be familiar with. 

That is, No. 1, in America today we 

have the most unequal distribution of 

wealth and income of any major country on Earth and worse in America 

today than at any time since the 1920s. 

We have in America today—and people 

should check it out; they may not believe me when I say this. You have got 

one family, the Waltons of Wal-Mart 

fame, one family owns more wealth 

than the bottom 40 percent of the 

American people. One family owns 

more wealth than the bottom 40 percent. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6085 

And our Republican friends say: That 

is not enough. We have to give those 

people, billionaires, even more tax 

breaks. Today the top 1 percent owns 

about 41 percent of the wealth of America. The bottom 60 percent—that is a 

significant majority of the American 

people added all together—own about 

2.3 percent of the wealth of America: 

Top 1 percent, 41 percent; bottom 60 

percent, 2.3 percent. 

Common sense and decency would 

suggest that when a few people have incredible wealth, when a few people are 

seeing their incomes and their wealth 

grow rapidly while the middle class is 

shrinking and poverty is increasing, 

common sense and common decency 

suggests that you ask the people on top 

whose effective tax rate is the lowest 

in decades to start paying their fair 

share of taxes before you cut Social Security, before you cut Medicare, Medicaid, education and nutrition programs. 

Right now, about one out of four 

major profitable corporations is paying 

zero in taxes. We have had instances 

which I have portrayed here on the 

floor of the Senate of some of the most 

profitable corporations in America in a 

given year paying nothing in Federal 

income taxes, and, in fact, getting a rebate from the IRS. 

Well, before you tell the elderly and 

children that they have to experience 

cuts when they cannot afford it, maybe 

you say to corporate America: Sorry, 

we are going to end the loopholes you 

currently are enjoying. Every single 

year we are losing about $100 billion in 

tax revenue because corporations and 

wealthy individuals are stashing their 

money in tax havens in the Cayman islands, Bermuda, and elsewhere. They 

are ‘‘patriotic’’ Americans who love 

this country so much they are stashing 

their money abroad in order to avoid 

paying taxes in this country. 

Maybe before you cut education, 

maybe before you cut back on infrastructure, we make sure that we do 

away with these tax havens and these 

tax shelters for millionaires and billionaires and large corporations. 

Lastly, we have tripled military 

spending since 1997. Right now the 

United States is spending almost as 

much as the rest of the world combined. We spend over 4 percent of our 

GDP on the military. Our friends in 

Europe—many of the countries there 

provide health care to all of their people, educational opportunities stronger 

than we do to our people—are spending 

2 percent. We are spending twice as 

much in GDP on defense. Maybe it is 

time to take a hard look at a lot of the 

waste and inefficiency that currently 

exists in the Defense Department. 

On my Web site, sanders.senate.gov, 

we have a whole list of ways that we 

can bring in revenue, where we can 

make cuts which are fair, which protect the middle class and working families and the most vulnerable people in 

this country. 

I am going to do everything I can to 

make sure we do not go forward in 

terms of deficit reduction by punishing 

people who are already hurting and 

then giving more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. That is bad 

economic policy. That is immoral. It is 

not something we should be doing. 

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant bill clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

MISSILE DEFENSE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, several 

of us have talked about the tragic terrorist attack on America 11 years ago 

today. I think we all remember where 

we were and what we were doing at the 

time. I remember so well going up to 

New York to Ground Zero and seeing 

the people who were involved and talking to the families of some of the firemen who lost their lives. As tragic as 

that is, I have to ask the question: Is 

there any doubt that those terrorists, 

if they had the ability to send a weapon over to the United States, would do 

that? 

I look back sometimes wistfully to 

the days of the Cold War when it was 

the USSR and the United States. They 

were predictable and we were predictable. But it is different. Such concepts 

as mutually assured destruction at 

that time were somewhat meaningful 

and were very effective. It is not effective now because we are dealing with 

people who want to die. It is a different 

environment altogether. 

On this 11th year, on this particular 

day, when I think about President 

Obama’s first budget 4 years ago, he 

did a lot of things I thought were very 

destructive to our military, and I have 

talked about that on the floor several 

times. He did away with the F–22, the 

only fifth-generation vehicle. He did 

away with our lift capacity of the C–17. 

He did away with the future combat 

system. I think people are aware of 

that, but something people may not be 

aware of that happened in that same 

budget was doing away with the Poland 

site of the ground-based interceptor. 

Think back to the decision that was 

made in this country that we had to 

prepare ourselves for Iran having the 

capability of a weapon that could be 

sent all the way over to the United 

States. We have ground-based interceptors in Alaska, all the way down to 

southern California. So anything coming from the west I feel very comfortable about, but coming from the 

other direction, coming from Iran, that 

is not the case. So we recognized some 

6 or 7 years ago that we were going to 

have to have some kind of a groundbased interceptor that would take care 

of a missile coming from the east. I 

was part of that. So we did that in both 

the Czech Republic and in Poland. The 

Czech Republic had to be willing to 

have a radar site and Poland had to be 

willing to take on Russia, which didn’t 

want them to have this capability, and 

we put a ground-based interceptor in 

Poland to take care of anything coming from that direction. We did that, 

but in his first budget President Obama 

did away with it. They tried to say 

that maybe that was not an accurate 

assessment, but the 2007 NIE—National 

Intelligence Estimate—concluded that 

Iran could develop an intercontinental 

missile capability by 2015. Less than a 

year later DOD stated in its April 2010 

report on Iran’s military that they sent 

to Congress—and I remember this very 

well: 

With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran 

could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable 

of reaching the United States by 2015. 

That is totally consistent with what 

they said back in 2007. 

In place of the third site, the Obama 

administration pitched a new missile 

defense plan, the European Phased 

Adaptive Approach with an incremental deployment of sea, land, and air 

versions, and so forth. One thing we all 

agree on is that the SM–3 Block IB is a 

short- to medium-range defense mechanism. The SM–3 Block IIA is short to 

medium range. The one that would 

take the place and would have the capability of the ground-based interceptor in Poland is the SM–3 Block IIB. 

That is still a concept. It is on the 

drawing board. We know Iran is going 

to have that capability by 2015 and 

they say maybe a deployment date by 

2020. That leaves the United States of 

America and Europe unprotected for 5 

years. 

Now, although I say unprotected, 

there is some level of protection there. 

They talk about the AEGIS ships; however, in subsequent budgets the President has cut the AEGIS ships in their 

capability and the number of missiles 

that they carry to the point where it 

leaves us still unprotected—not just us 

but also Europe. 

Fast-forward to today and DOD’s 

April 2012 report, the report on Iran, 

which, again, states: 

Iran has boosted the lethality and effectiveness of existing systems with accuracy 

and improvements and new submunition 

payloads. Iran may be technically capable of 

flight testing an intercontinental ballistic 

missile by 2015. 

Secretary Panetta confirmed this. He 

is the Secretary of Defense. He said 

earlier this year on ‘‘60 Minutes’’ that 

he believes Iran would be able to 

produce a nuclear weapon in about a 

year, and then it would take them another 1 to 2 years in order to put it on 

a deliverable vehicle. Again, that is 

around 2015, leaving a 5-year gap between the date when our interceptors 

become operational and the date that 

Iran fields a nuclear ballistic missile 

capable of threatening Europe and the 

United States. 

In this year’s budget request President Obama cut $250 million from the 

THAAD system procurement, procuring 36 interceptors instead of 42. He 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6086 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 11, 2012 

cuts THAAD fire units from 9 to 6 and 

cut $175 million in AEGIS. Again, that 

is part of the system that would replace the ground-based interceptor in 

Poland that is already under construction. The SM–3 procurement would be 

delayed, procuring 29 SM–3 Block IB 

interceptors instead of 46; in other 

words, dramatically cutting down our 

capability at the same time that there 

could be no doubt in anyone’s mind 

from what I said that 2015 is a realistic 

date when Iran would have the capability of not just the weapon but a delivery system. 

Additionally, the President has failed 

to plan or program enough AEGIS 

ships in the budget to provide full coverage. In other words, they can move 

them around. They have a good rocket 

capability. I have been supportive of 

the AEGIS system, but he is cutting 

down on the number of them. Those 

should just be there for the protection 

of Europe and not the protection of the 

United States. 

At the end of President Obama’s now 

infamous meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on March 26 of 

this year, President Obama said—not 

knowing that the mic was open: 

On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [incoming Russian President 

Vladimir Putin] to give me space. 

That is President Obama’s words. He 

continues: 

This is my last election. After my election, 

I have more flexibility. 

Thinking back 11 years ago at the 

tragedy that immediately killed 3,000 

people in that horrible terrorist attack, again, I ask the same question I 

asked a few minutes ago: Is there any 

doubt in anyone’s mind that a person 

would hesitate to come over on a wellorchestrated terrorist attack on America and use a system delivered on some 

type of vehicle to the eastern part of 

the United States? I say no. I can’t 

imagine anyone believes that is not a 

possibility. 

As tragic as 3,000 people being killed 

was, it doesn’t take much of an imagination to look at any type of missile 

hitting a major American city. We 

wouldn’t be talking about 3,000; we 

would be talking about 300,000 or even 

3 million. 

I think this is the day, on the 11th 

anniversary, that we need to take the 

warning we received 11 years ago and 

look into the future not just for ourselves—in my case, for my 20 kids and 

grandkids. We cannot subject ourselves. We need to take care of this 

horrible gap in our defense of an incoming missile coming from the east 

as quickly as possible. 

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 

SHAHEEN). The clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

WATCH THE HELPERS

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, since 

this is a day of remembrance of 9/11, 

when I started my day this morning, I 

picked up a book I read from time to 

time. It is called ‘‘One Simple Act’’ by 

Debbie Macomber, and it is about gratitude and being generous. The very 

first paragraph I picked up happens to 

be about 9/11. It says: 

Watch the Helpers 

After the bombing of the twin towers at 

New York’s Trade Center, the nation was 

stunned. Parents didn’t know what to say to 

their children. They’d seen such evil things 

on television that even adults couldn’t put 

the events into any kind of context. When a 

few parents wrote to Mr. ROGERS, the beloved children’s television personality, to 

ask for advice, Fred Rogers said, ‘‘Tell them 

to watch the helpers.’’ What wise advice. I’ve 

thought about his answer many times. When 

tragedy hits, don’t focus on the faces of pain 

and horror. Let your eyes follow those who 

are rescuing, feeding, healing, sweeping, 

comforting, and rebuilding. On 9/11, it was 

the selfless firefighters who took center 

stage. They will be remembered long after 

the evildoers are forgotten. 

What good advice: Watch the helpers. 

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise 

today to speak to an issue that threatens the very viability of the U.S. Senate. 

Last July the Obama administration, 

using the flimsiest of arguments, 

granted themselves the authority to 

waive the Federal welfare work requirements. Whether or not what the 

Obama administration intends to accomplish with these waivers is good 

welfare policy has been the subject of 

robust debate. 

I am not here to argue the merits or 

lack thereof of the underlying welfare 

policy goals of the Obama administration. What I am here to do is to make 

a plea to my fellow Senators: as Senators, we simply cannot let this action 

stand. 

If we fail to stand together as Senators in defense of our constitutional 

duty to be the ones to draft legislation, 

we might as well pack our bags and go 

home because we will have opened the 

door for this administration and future 

administrations to unilaterally decide 

they can waive precedent, congressional intent, and actual legislative 

language on which Senators have scrupulously debated and compromised. 

If we do not stand together as a Senate, we will be ceding our authority to 

the executive branch. The longstanding 

implications of this could possibly extend to welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, 

disability policy, child welfare, and Social Security Programs. Allow me to 

elaborate. 

According to the Obama administration, because section 1115 of the Social 

Security Act allows them certain waiver authority over section 402 of the Social Security Act, which deals with a 

State’s welfare plan, and section 402 

cites section 407, then the administration has waiver authority over section 

407, which enumerates State welfare 

work requirements. 

This doesn’t make any sense. 

I have been a leader in the Senate on 

welfare for nearly two decades. I helped 

draft and manage the floor during the 

1996 overhaul of welfare. Five years 

later, I worked across the aisle with 

John Breaux of Louisiana and others to 

craft the so-called tripartisan proposal 

for welfare reauthorization. The 

Breaux-Hatch proposal became the 

basis for the Senate Finance Committee bill that was marked up in the 

summer of 2002. 

Much of the work Senator Breaux 

and I accomplished made its way into 

the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone bill— 

the so-called PRIDE bill—that was reported twice out of the Senate Finance 

Committee. 

In all that work on welfare, not 

once—not one time, not ever—was 

there any discussion of allowing States 

to waive State work requirements. If 

anyone had raised it, Republican or 

Democrat, they would have been 

laughed out of the room—and for good 

reason. The crux of the deal and the 

most integral feature of the 1996 act 

was to give States flexibility to design 

their own welfare programs but also require them to meet meaningful performance measures. The idea that anyone would contemplate allowing States 

to waive these performance measures 

would have been preposterous, even ludicrous. 

So allowing the executive branch the 

authority to waive welfare work requirements has never, ever been a part 

of any discussion of welfare reform. 

The concept of the executive branch 

having the authority to waive the 1996 

welfare work requirements also did not 

occur during the previous two administrations. It just never came up because 

no one thought it was possible. 

The administration likes to point to 

a 2005 letter from Governors in support 

of the PRIDE bill as justification for 

their unprecedented action, but what 

they fail to note is that this letter was 

not sent to President Bush, it was sent 

to Members of Congress, who, the Governors correctly believed, were the 

only ones with the constitutional authority to give the States flexibility. 

This point bears repeating: Until the 

July 12 informational memo to States, 

no one ever thought the executive 

branch could waive welfare work requirements. I would even venture to 

speculate that the Obama administration itself does not seriously think it 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6087 

had the authority to waive welfare 

work requirements, and here is why I 

suspect this is the case. 

One of the few bipartisan bills that 

was actually enacted during the 112th 

session of Congress was legislation I 

wrote with my partner on the Senate 

Finance Committee, Chairman BAUCUS. 

This legislation—the, ‘‘Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act’’—included a provision I drafted that allowed the Department of 

Health and Human Services the authority to grant certain child welfare 

waivers. It specifically allowed HHS to 

waive provisions included in Title IV-E 

of the Social Security Act. Congress 

gave HHS that authority because the 

Congress had been asked by States for 

flexibility to waive certain provisions 

of Title IV-E and because, just as everyone assumed the executive branch 

could not waive section 407 of the Social Security Act, no one believed they 

could waive Title IV-E of the Social 

Security Act. 

But if we go and look up section 402, 

just as there is a reference to section 

407 contained within that section, so, 

too, is there a reference to Title IV-E. 

If the administration really believes in 

their heart of hearts they have carte 

blanche to waive whatever is even mentioned in section 402, why did they 

have to wait around for Congress to 

give them that authority? The answer, 

of course, is the Obama Administration 

never had the authority to begin with, 

and I believe even they know that to be 

true today. 

The real issue, beyond the rhetoric, 

is that if the Senate lets this action 

stand unchallenged, if the Senate does 

not speak as one body, united, then our 

inaction will embolden this administration—and future administrations, I 

might add—to bypass the constitutionally mandated job of the Congress 

to enact laws whenever it suits their 

pleasure or political aims—in other 

words, to take over the legislative 

function. 

The Congress does not have many 

tools in our toolkit to thwart administrative overreach, but one of those 

tools is the Congressional Review Act. 

The CRA, as it is referred to, allows for 

Senate fast track authority to disapprove a rule that is submitted from 

an agency in the event an administration attempts to circumvent the CRA 

by issuing other forms of guidance that 

should have been submitted as a rule. 

The Government Accountability Office, 

which has standing with our Senate 

Parliamentarians, can determine that 

an agency action meets the definition 

of a rule as established by the Administrative Procedures Act and that therefore the CRA applies. 

Last July Congressman DAVE CAMP, 

chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and I asked the GAO to determine whether the so-called guidance to 

States submitted by the Obama administration was a rule and applicable to 

the CRA. Last week Chairman CAMP

and I received word the GAO had determined that the welfare waiver policy 

was, in fact, a rule and subject to the 

CRA. This week both Chairman CAMP

and I will introduce resolutions of disapproval under the CRA for the administration’s welfare waiver policies. The 

House will mark up and pass their resolution this week. The Senate can act, 

under fast track procedures which 

limit debate during the week of October 1, 2012. 

I have taken the floor today to ask 

that the Senate pass my resolution of 

disapproval on a unanimous vote. 

It is imperative that we send the executive branch the unambiguous signal 

that the Senate’s ability to craft legislation—to do the work tasked to us by 

the Constitution—will not be trifled 

with by this or any other administration. If the Senate does not speak with 

one unified voice on this issue, then I 

firmly believe we will have forfeited 

our relevance in future debates over 

welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, foster 

care, and Social Security, just to mention a few. 

If any administration can capriciously deem themselves to have unlimited waiver authority over anything 

mentioned in provisions referred to in 

section 1115, then the Senate is, for all 

intents and purposes, irrelevant. Sure, 

we can have our debates and develop 

our expertise and write our laws, but, 

colleagues, that won’t mean a hill of 

beans if an administration can come 

along and just waive everything we 

have worked so hard to get right. Colleagues and friends, we just can’t let 

that happen. 

I know that many in this Chamber 

support President Obama. I know also 

that many of these same Senators wish 

he had not taken this action. But as 

Members of what I still believe is the 

greatest deliberative body in the world, 

we have to put partisanship aside for 

the greater good of the Senate. If Senator Byrd were sitting here today, I 

cannot imagine he would allow this to 

happen. And I can’t imagine anybody 

on the other side will allow this to happen. 

We have to send as strong a signal as 

possible that administrative overreach 

will not stand; that no matter what our 

political persuasion, the Senate stands 

together and we will speak with one 

voice to say in no uncertain terms that 

we will not be ridden roughshod over, 

that our constitutional rights as lawmakers will not be trampled on, and 

that we will do everything in our power 

to preserve and defend these rights. 

To that end, I urge colleagues to support my efforts to stop this unprecedented executive overreach. Support 

the resolution to disapprove. Support 

the Senate. Let’s stand up for this 

body. Whether you are a Democrat or a 

Republican, we have to make it clear 

to the other two branches of government that we have certain rights and 

we have certain powers that no President and no court can overrule. It is 

important that we stand up on this 

issue. If we don’t, I hesitate to say 

what could happen in the future. It 

ain’t gonna be pretty. All I can say is 

that this is an important issue, it is 

one every Senator in the Senate ought 

to consider important, and we ought to 

set partisanship aside and do this in 

the best interest of the Senate and in 

the best interest of our legislative ability to act. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

BROWN of Ohio). The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

ROMNEY-RYAN BUDGET

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come 

to the floor to talk again on the devastating so-called Ryan budget—which, 

of course, is now the Romney-Ryan 

budget. I will speak about that very 

shortly, but I also want to focus some 

attention on how the Ryan budget is 

preventing us from getting a farm bill 

this year. We have a farm bill we 

passed in the Senate, but the House 

can’t get it done. Earlier this year the 

Senate passed a bipartisan farm bill. It 

had broad support from Republicans 

and Democrats, all the farm groups, 

consumer groups, and environmental 

groups. With all of that support, one 

would think it would be easy for the 

House, but the House has not followed 

suit. Unable or perhaps unwilling to 

bring the farm bill to the House floor, 

they similarly refuse to take up the 

Senate bill. As a result, our farm policy has languished at a time when farm 

country is literally burning up because 

of a drought. 

As I understand it, the House is going 

to adjourn this week and go home 

without taking any action on a farm 

bill and leave our farmers and ranchers 

in the lurch when all the House needs 

to do is take up the Senate-passed bill, 

pass it, send it to the President, and he 

will sign it. Again, we passed the bill 

here with Republicans, Democrats, all 

the farm groups, consumer groups, and 

environmental groups supporting it. 

We even made a $23 billion contribution to reducing the deficit in the farm 

bill. 

Well, it seems worth noting that one 

of the reasons the House can’t act is 

seemingly because of the Ryan budget, 

which, of course, we know is just a proposal. The House has passed it. I think 

they voted on it 34 times, if I am not 

mistaken. 

The Ryan budget calls for draconian 

cuts to our Federal nutrition programs; that is, the SNAP program, otherwise known as food stamps. It helps 

low-income families and families with 

maybe a modest income. Maybe they 

lost a job and are in transition and 

need support for 1 or 2 months before 

they get back on their feet. It helps 

with summer feeding programs for 

kids, feeding programs for low-income 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6088 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 11, 2012 

elderly, and feeding programs that go 

to daycare centers. In other words, we 

have an abundance, and we are going to 

use this abundance to help make sure 

no one goes to bed hungry and people 

have adequate nutrition in our society. 

Well, the Ryan budget made a draconian cut in the nutrition programs. 

Many of the House Republicans are 

saying they will not support a farm bill 

that doesn’t have those draconian cuts, 

which I am proud to say the Senate bill 

does not have. 

I hasten to add, as the former chair 

of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I 

long advocated cutting wasteful agricultural spending. For years I led the 

effort to get rid of direct payments, 

which the Senate bill does finally, and 

contributes, as I said, $23 billion in deficit reduction. So I think this situation 

shows what the Ryan budget is. It is 

emblematic of the Ryan budget. 

Not only is the Ryan budget devastating for working and low-income 

Americans, but its insistence on cutting benefits for low-income Americans 

is getting in the way of setting commonsense policy for our farmers and 

ranchers as well. It is remarkable that 

so many people in the House in the 

middle of a drought would say: I am 

not going to vote for a farm bill that is 

important to our farmers and ranchers; 

I will not vote for it unless I can cut 

nutrition benefits for tens of millions 

of struggling Americans. 

That is what the House Republicans 

are saying: They will not vote for a 

farm bill that will help our farmers and 

ranchers and is supported by every 

major farm group, all the consumer 

groups, the environmental groups, and 

it is supported in the Senate by a lot of 

Republicans. It is a bipartisan bill supported by the ranking member of the 

Agriculture Committee, Senator ROBERTS of Kansas, former chair of the Agriculture Committee in the House. We 

passed that bill and yet the Republicans in the House are saying unless 

we have these draconian cuts to nutrition programs they will not pass the 

farm bill. 

That is the kind of ‘‘my way or the 

highway’’ attitude of the tea party Republicans in the House. If they can’t 

have it their very narrow way, they 

will not let the rest of the House act. 

They will not take up a bipartisan bill 

passed by the Senate. 

Well, it is stunning what the House is 

refusing to do in refusing to pass a 

farm bill. All I can hope is that someone over there comes to their senses 

and gets that farm bill through before 

they adjourn and go home. 

Now, since we recessed around the 1st 

of August and just came back yesterday, our colleague on the House side, 

Congressman PAUL RYAN, has become 

the Vice Presidential nominee for the 

Republican ticket under, of course, 

Governor Romney, who has the nomination for President. Congressman 

PAUL RYAN is not an unknown entity 

and not an unknown quantity. He has 

been around a long time. He has been 

chairman of the House Budget Committee, and he has put forward the socalled Ryan budget twice. 

Well, what is a budget? A budget is a 

blueprint. It is like in order to build a 

house, one has to have a blueprint. 

Well, a budget for a city council is a 

blueprint for what they want to do for 

the city. A State budget talks about 

how the State is going to move. It is 

forward looking. What are we going to 

do in the future? The Federal budget is 

the same way. It is our blueprint. It is 

a blueprint for how we are going to 

move our country forward. 

We have the Ryan budget. I think it 

is fair for us to take a look at that 

blueprint and let the American people 

know just what is in that budget. We 

face a fundamental choice in this 

year’s election: Are we going to restore, rescue, and rebuild a struggling 

middle class or are we going to ship 

even more of our wealth and advantages to those at the top at the expense 

of the middle class? 

Well, Republicans made it clear 

where they stand. They did so when 

nearly every Republican in Congress 

voted for the Ryan budget plan, and 

Governor Romney embraced the Ryan 

budget as ‘‘marvelous.’’ As I said yesterday, that is not exactly a word I 

think most Americans would use to describe something they liked, but I suppose if one is having tea at the Ritz 

and they are in that class of Americans, well, they might use the word to 

describe it as ‘‘marvelous.’’ 

At the very centerpiece of the Ryan 

budget is a dramatic shift of more 

wealth to those at the top. It targets 

huge new tax cuts for those at the top. 

Here is what it would do: $265,000 more 

per year for someone making over $1 

million a year in income. That is on 

top of the $129,000 they are already getting from the Bush tax cuts. The Ryan 

budget would extend the Bush tax cuts 

and put $265,000 on top of that $129,000, 

which comes to around $400,000 a year 

if someone is making over $1 million a 

year. 

We are going to hear a lot this fall 

about entitlements and cutting entitlements. Oh, we have to get a handle on 

entitlements. When they talk about entitlements, mostly Republicans talk 

about those programs that go to help 

people who are at the bottom rung of 

the ladder. They are talking about 

things such as the SNAP program, the 

nutrition assistance program or they 

are talking about job training programs or maybe title I. I will talk 

about education in a minute. 

What about this entitlement? This is 

an entitlement: If a person is making 

over $1 million a year, under the Ryan 

budget they will be entitled to over 

$400,000 a year in tax cuts. What about 

that entitlement? No one wants to talk 

about taking away that entitlement, 

but that is an entitlement. 

The Republican tax cuts would total 

$4.5 trillion over 10 years. Well, how do 

they pay for it? They don’t want to 

say, but budget and tax experts understand this game very well. The Republican budget would partially offset 

these tax cuts by making deep and Draconian cuts that undergird the middle 

class and essentially the quality of life 

in the country—everything from education, student grants and loans, law 

enforcement, clean air and clean water, 

food safety, medical research, highways, bridges, and other infrastructures. 

Lastly, the Republicans offset these 

new big tax cuts for those at the top by 

actually raising taxes on the middle 

class. You heard me right. The Ryan 

budget would actually raise taxes on 

the middle class. The Nonpartisan Tax 

Policy Center estimates that under the 

Republican plan middle-class families 

with children would see their taxes go 

up on an average of more than $2,000 a 

year. 

The bottom line is the Ryan budget 

does not reduce the deficit. The Ryan 

budget has a deficit for the next 28 

years. The savings they gain is by cutting all of these programs that undergird the middle class and by raising 

taxes on the middle class. Basically, 

the lion’s share of that is going to go 

into tax cuts for the top wealthiest 

Americans. 

The truth is Representative RYAN is 

not interested in balancing the budget. 

Even under the best assumptions his 

budget would not balance until 2040, 28 

years from now. As I have said, Mr. 

RYAN is obviously an acolyte of former 

Vice President Cheney who once said in 

a kind of unguarded moment that deficits don’t matter. Remember that? 

Vice President Cheney said that. Obviously, George W. Bush and his administration took that to heart because we 

had the biggest deficit in history for 

the 8 years George W. Bush was President. 

RYAN doesn’t care about deficits. He 

only cares about tax cuts for the 

wealthy. They just believe if we give 

more and more to the top, it will magically trickle down on everyone else. We 

know that doesn’t work. 

The Romney-Ryan Republican plan is 

extreme and unbalanced. I am not 

making this up. You don’t have to take 

it from me. Even former House Speaker 

Newt Gingrich criticized the House 

budget. He called it ‘‘rightwing social 

engineering.’’ That is what Newt Gingrich called it, ‘‘rightwing social engineering.’’ Newt got that one right. 

The aim of Representative RYAN is to 

use the deficit crisis as a pretext for 

degrading and dismantling everything 

from Medicare and Medicaid to education, environmental protection, 

workplace safety, medical and scientific research, and on and on. Again, 

he doubles down on the theory that if 

only we give more to those at the top, 

it will magically trickle down. 

Today I would like to focus specifically on the devastating impact of the 

Romney-Ryan budget on education. It 

is an unprecedented assault on education funding and a grave threat that 

this poses to school reform efforts 

across the United States. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6089 

I have the unusual perspective on 

this issue as both the chair of the appropriations subcommittee that funds 

our Federal education programs—and I 

might point out that for the last 23 

years I have either been the chair of 

that appropriations subcommittee or a 

ranking member; I have been on that 

subcommittee since 1985—and I am also 

now the chair of the Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions Committee, which 

authorizes the education programs, and 

I have been on that committee since 

1987. I have served under distinguished 

chairmen such as, Senator Kennedy, 

Senator Kassebaum, Senator Jeffords, 

Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, 

and Senator ENZI. Now I chair it. So for 

all of these years I have been on both 

the authorizing committee and on the 

appropriations subcommittee. 

I must say I have been heartened by 

the exciting work being done in schools 

across the country to improve the 

quality of instruction for our students 

to close the achievement gap and graduate more students who are both college and career ready. Forty-five 

States and the District of Columbia 

have collaborated to create high-quality, common education standards, common core standards. The Obama administration’s Race to the Top initiative 

has jump-started ambitious State-level 

reforms to turn around the Nation’s 

lowest performing schools. In the 

HELP Committee, which I chair, working with Senator ENZI this year, we reauthorized on a bipartisan basis the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act. Positive changes are happening in 

America’s schools. However, it is wishful thinking to continue to expect improvements if we continue to lay off 

tens of thousands of teachers, increase 

class sizes, and reduce instructional 

time. 

As I said, Senator ENZI and I worked 

very hard to get a reauthorization of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act through our committee on a 

bipartisan basis, but we have been unable to get it on the floor, so we will 

have to do it again next year. But if we 

look to the Ryan budget, we will be 

laying off tens of thousands of teachers 

and we will increase class sizes and reduce instructional time. Is that where 

we want to go as a country? 

As I said, this plan, which has been 

embraced by Governor Romney, would 

cut nondefense discretionary spending 

by 18.9 percent in fiscal year 2014—not 

this upcoming fiscal year but the next 

fiscal year. Let’s take a look at what a 

cut that size would mean for Federal 

education programs. Let’s take a look 

at title I. People ask: What is title I? It 

is the cornerstone of the Federal Government’s support for elementary and 

secondary education in this country. 

The purpose of title I—and, by the way, 

it has been in the law since 1965; a 

great society program, I might add, 

which has done a world of good for our 

schools all across America. The purpose of title I is to help all students, 

especially those from disadvantaged 

backgrounds, meet high academic 

standards. Title I money goes to more 

than 90 percent of the Nation’s school 

districts. Schools have a lot of flexibility with title I funds, but they use 

the money mostly to pay the salaries 

of teachers and teachers’ aides who are 

helping students in danger of falling 

behind. 

Under the Romney-Ryan budget, 

more than 10,000 schools across the 

country could lose their title I funding 

in fiscal year 2014. More than 37,000 

teachers could lose their jobs. Not only 

would this hurt students, it is going to 

put more people out of work. 

This title I program is about $14.5 billion a year. It is a national program. 

What we basically said in 1965 and we 

have said every year since is that elementary and secondary education is 

basically a local and State function. 

But we want to come in and help those 

areas that have low tax bases, a high 

proportion of underprivileged kids and 

low-income families. We want to come 

in and help them because there is one 

thing we know: A poorly educated child 

in one State will not necessarily grow 

up to be a burden in that State; that 

child can move to another State. So as 

a national policy, we said in 1965 and 

we have every year since, under Republican Presidents and under Democratic 

Presidents, Republican Congresses and 

Democratic Congresses, we have said 

title I is an important national program. Under the Ryan budget, if enacted, more than 10,000 schools would 

lose their title I funding. 

Let’s take a look at another important education program—one particularly close to me—and that is the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act. Again, this has been in the law 

since 1975. The funding for this is about 

$11.6 billion a year. Again, under the 

Romney-Ryan budget, States could 

lose funding for approximately 25,000 

special education teachers, aides, and 

other staff serving children with disabilities, again, in the year 2014—25,000 

just in 1 year, the year 2014. This is special education teachers. 

Again, I wish to remind everyone, 

and I have said many times here before, that States are required to provide a free and appropriate public education to students with disabilities. A 

lot of people say this is a Federal mandate. This is not a Federal mandate; it 

is a constitutional mandate. Even if 

the Federal Government didn’t provide 

one nickel to any State for IDEA, the 

State would still have to provide a free, 

appropriate public education because 

the courts have decided that if a State 

provides a free public education for its 

students, it cannot discriminate. Before they said they couldn’t discriminate on the basis of sex, national origin, race—Brown v. Board of Education—and under PARC v. Pennsylvania, another case, they said we can’t 

discriminate on the basis of disability. 

We can’t say we are going to collect 

taxes from all these people, but this 

family with the kid with a disability, 

they are out, and that kid doesn’t get 

an education. We said that is unconstitutional, and I think all would recognize that. So States have a constitutional requirement, if they provide a 

free public education, to provide that 

free, appropriate public education to 

kids with disabilities. Even if Federal 

funding was cut, the States would still 

have to pay for it. They have to educate their students with disabilities. 

If the Romney-Ryan budget were to 

pass, then what would happen is we 

would offload this cost of education to 

the States. What would happen? State 

and local taxes would go sky high. 

States and communities would still 

have to pay their special education 

teachers. If they are not getting 

enough from the Federal Government, 

they will have to find their own tax 

revenues to make up the difference. 

Just keep in mind, under the RomneyRyan budget, approximately 25,000 special education teachers would not be 

funded under IDEA in 2014. Think 

about that. 

Let’s turn to higher education. Since 

1972, we have provided what has been 

known as Pell grants, named after 

former Senator Claiborne Pell. Pell 

grants are for students who want to go 

to college. They qualify for these 

grants because of low income. Another 

one of those terrible entitlements, 

right? If a person is low income and 

they want to go to college, they get a 

Pell grant. It has been a lifesaver for so 

many families who otherwise could not 

afford to send their kids to college. 

As we all know, a college education 

now is more important than ever. New 

jobs in every industry from manufacturing, construction, health care, and 

public health administration require 

workers who have the skill and the 

education. Look what happened in the 

recent recession. Workers with a college education have led the economic 

recovery. People with a bachelor’s degree or better have gained 2 million 

jobs since the end of the recession. 

Meanwhile, workers with only a high 

school diploma or less have lost more 

than 230,000 jobs. There are over—I just 

saw it printed today—about 2 million 

jobs in America that are there but are 

not being filled because of lack of qualification for workers. That is education. So one would hope the RomneyRyan budget, which they tout as being 

for creating jobs, would put a high priority on getting people into college, 

but it does just the opposite. In fiscal 

year 2014, nearly 10 million students 

could see their Pell grants fall, on average, by more than $1,000. Again, 

under the Romney-Ryan budget—this 

is an average, the current average 

award is $3,831. Under the RomneyRyan budget in 2014, in one fell swoop 

it would go down to $2,599. For some 

students, that cut could mean the difference between whether they pursue 

higher education or not. 

Let’s go to the other end of the education spectrum. I started out talking 

about elementary and secondary and 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6090 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 11, 2012 

high school and then I talked about 

college Pell grants. Let’s look at preschool. Back in 1992, the Council on 

Education Funding, consisting of mostly CEOs from large corporations, came 

out with a study and a report on education as to what did business in America need in the future looking at education. They spent 2 or 3 years having 

hearings, investigating, and doing all 

that kind of stuff. This is a report from 

the business leaders of America. What 

did they say in that report? They said 

education begins at birth and the preparation for education begins before 

birth. The whole finding was we need 

to put more into preschool education. 

That was 20 years ago. 

Last year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—20 years later—came out with 

another study. This is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These are not social 

scientists; these are businesspeople. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce report 

said we have to put more money into 

preschool education. We, at the Federal 

level, have been doing that through a 

program called Head Start. We have 

had Head Start, I think, if I am not 

mistaken, since about 1968. High-quality, early childhood education has been 

proven to save taxpayer dollars in the 

long run by reducing the cost for welfare, special education and, might I 

add, criminal justice—read that ‘‘jail 

time.’’ One of the highest correlating 

factors—in fact, if I am not mistaken, 

the highest correlating factor for people who are incarcerated in our prisons 

is the lack of a high school education. 

Under the Romney-Ryan budget, up 

to 200,000 low-income children and 

their families could lose access to Head 

Start—again, in fiscal year 2014. I am 

not talking about over the next 10 

years, I am talking about in 1 year. We 

have about 970,000 children in Head 

Start today. In 2014, 200,000 would leave 

if the Romney-Ryan budget were to 

happen. That is their blueprint. I have 

to keep reminding folks, that is their 

blueprint for where they want America 

to go. This is where they want America 

to go. 

Let me talk about a related topic, 

and it has a lot to do with education; 

that is, childcare funding. The Child 

Care and Development block grant provides subsidies to low-income families 

to help pay for childcare. These are 

families who are working, who are 

looking for work, and they depend on 

these subsidies to do so; otherwise, 

they wouldn’t be able to work. By this 

point, it will come as no surprise that 

the Romney-Ryan budget would force 

approximately 95,000 low-income children across the country to lose access 

to high-quality childcare in fiscal year 

2014. 

I think we get the picture. The Romney-Ryan budget is a devastating assault on education at all levels. 

Childcare—and a lot of these components have education—Head Start, elementary education, secondary education, title I, IDEA, special education, 

Pell grants for college, all devastatingly reduced—again, not over 10 years, 

in year 2014. 

I am struck by the fact that this 

budget of Mr. RYAN’s is being proposed 

at a time when America’s competitors 

are surging forward. China has tripled 

its investment in education and is 

building hundreds of new universities. 

Even in times of austerity and shrinking budgets, smart countries don’t turn 

a chainsaw on themselves. They continue to invest in the future. And the 

most important investment in the future is an investment in education. 

In the months ahead, Congress will 

likely focus on reducing the deficit, 

and this is appropriate. Certainly any 

strategy for solving our fiscal crisis 

must include sensible spending cuts, 

but we should not jeopardize our longterm economic growth and recovery by 

slashing education. We have a saying 

out in farm country: You don’t eat 

your seed corn. Our children today, 

they are our seed corn for the future. 

You do not throw them on the trash 

heap. 

On their own, the Romney-Ryan 

budget cuts to education defy common 

sense, but put in the broader context of 

their budget plan in its entirety, these 

cuts are not just ill-considered, they 

really smack of class warfare. The 

Romney-Ryan budget demands nothing 

whatsoever—not one dollar—from the 

wealthiest and most privileged people 

in America. Essentially, the RomneyRyan budget is Robin Hood in reverse: 

It robs from the poor and gives it to 

the rich. 

So let’s get this straight. The American people need to know this. This is 

their blueprint. Under the RomneyRyan budget, we have devastating assaults on education. Last night I covered health care. Others will cover 

other topics. The Senator from California covered transportation and infrastructure. 

So again, under this plan, the United 

States—under Romney-Ryan—should 

set aside $4.5 trillion over the next decade for tax cuts, with most of it going 

to the wealthiest 2 percent, but under 

the Romney-Ryan budget we cannot afford to sustain funding for public education. 

In addition, congressional Republicans specifically want to take away 

the $2,500 American opportunity tax 

credit used by so many middle-class 

and modest-income families to help 

cover college costs. Again, because of 

Republicans’ determination to further 

lower tax rates for the wealthy, many 

other middle-class college tax benefits 

are at risk. This is outrageous. This approach does not remotely reflect the 

priorities and values of the American 

people. We cannot—we cannot—be 

dragged backward into a winner-takeall society where the privileged and 

powerful seize an even greater share of 

the wealth even as our middle class is 

struggling and declining. For nearly 

half a century, robust Federal investments in quality public schools and access to higher education have been a 

critical pillar undergirding the American middle class. The Romney-Ryan 

budget takes a jackhammer to that pillar. 

Going back to the 1930s, the American people have supported and 

strengthened a uniquely American social contract. That social contract says 

that we will prepare our young and 

care for our elderly. That contract says 

that if you work hard and play by the 

rules, you will be able to rise to the 

middle class and even beyond. That social contract says that a cardinal role 

of government is to provide a ladder of 

opportunity so that every American 

can realistically aspire to the American dream. In one fell swoop, the Romney-Ryan blueprint budget would rip 

up that social contract. It would replace it with a survival-of-the-fittest, 

winner-take-all philosophy that tells 

struggling, aspiring Americans and 

their communities: Tough luck, you 

are on your own. 

As President Clinton said in his 

speech last week: There are two philosophies at work here—the RomneyRyan blueprint budget, which says: 

Tough luck, you are on your own; if 

you win the lottery, you are OK; if you 

do not, too bad, or the philosophy 

being proposed by President Obama 

and so many of us here: that we are all 

in this together, the rising tide lifts all 

boats, that we have a social contract 

that we have adhered to for nearly 80 

years now. We will invest in our young 

and care for our elderly. We will make 

sure there is a ladder, a ramp of opportunity for the middle class. 

The ‘‘tough luck, you are on your 

own’’ philosophy of the Romney-Ryan 

budget is not the kind of America that 

my parents wanted or that they built 

for their children. It is not the kind of 

America that my neighbors in Iowa 

and across this country want to see. 

So in the weeks ahead, our Nation 

faces an absolutely fundamental 

choice. I repeat: Are we going to rescue, restore, and rebuild the middle 

class or are we going to continue to 

shift even more wealth and advantages 

to those at the top, at the expense of 

the middle class? 

Accumulation of riches by the 

wealthiest in our society is not the 

same as wealth creation by a society. If 

we are truly interested in creating 

wealth in our society, we should be investing in education, making sure 

there is a ladder or ramp of opportunity by making sure the benefits of 

our society go to those with new ideas 

and new information, and those people 

may be kids from very low income families, they may be kids with disabilities. That is true wealth creation of a 

society—not just giving more to people 

at the top. 

So, again, the Romney-Ryan budget 

makes exactly the wrong choice. I disagree with that budget. America remains a tremendously wealthy and resourceful nation. Again, when you listen to what the Romney-Ryan budget 

is, when you look at it, it is sort of premised on the fact that we are busted, 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6091 

we are broke, we cannot afford 

childcare, we cannot afford title I, we 

cannot afford Pell grants, we cannot 

afford it, we are broke, but we can find 

tax breaks for the wealthiest. 

We are not broke. America remains 

the wealthiest society, the wealthiest 

country the world has ever seen. We 

have the highest per capita income of 

any major nation. So it kind of begs 

the question, does it not: If we are so 

rich, why are we so poor, why are we so 

broke? Because there has been a 

misallocation of capital, more and 

more going to fewer and fewer, not 

enough being used to educate our kids, 

provide a good college education, make 

sure we have the highest qualified 

teachers in all of our schools, that we 

have the best principals, that we can 

have a school system that is second to 

none in the world. That is the kind of 

America that we should have and that 

we can afford to do. We can afford to do 

this if we have the right blueprint. The 

Romney-Ryan budget takes us down 

the wrong road. 

The middle class is the backbone of 

this country. We have to rescue, restore, and rebuild it, and we need leaders who have the backbone to do that 

for our middle class. It is not the Romney-Ryan budget. 

Last night I spoke about the devastation on health care. I discussed what 

would happen in education. Next I am 

going to come to the floor and talk 

about what is going to happen to working families, what is going to happen to 

people in America when we take away 

some of the protections they have so 

they do not get injured, they do not get 

sick, so they can show up for work 

every day healthy. So we are going to 

look again at that devastation. Others 

will come to the floor and talk about 

the infrastructure and what that 

means for America. 

Well, I do not often agree with Newt 

Gingrich, as people know, but he was 

right. This is rightwing social engineering. We do not need that in America. Mr. Romney and Mr. RYAN have 

put their stamp of approval on it. The 

American people need to know what is 

in that budget, and we intend to tell 

them between now and the time we adjourn and go home. 

With that, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BENNET). The Senator from Maryland. 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank 

Senator ENZI for his patience in allowing me to speak for a few minutes in 

regard to the 11th anniversary of September 11. I ask unanimous consent to 

speak as in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

ELEVENTH ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise 

today to join my colleagues in commemorating the 11th anniversary of 

September 11, 2001. The tragedy of 9/11 

is forever seared in our Nation’s consciousness. The attacks in New York, 

Pennsylvania, and Virginia were intended to crush the American spirit 

but instead galvanized it to new 

strengths. 

After 11 years, the memories are still 

raw and the pain is real. It is for the 

3,000 people who perished that day that 

I stand here on the floor of the U.S. 

Senate and ask everyone: Never let go 

of those memories. 

On that day, terrorists showed their 

utter lack of humanity; we responded 

by showing the best side of ours. We 

suffered a grievous loss on that day, 

but we must remember that we are a 

strong and determined nation and we 

will defeat those who want to do us 

harm. 

Many of those responsible have been 

hunted down and brought to justice. In 

the case of Osama bin Laden and many 

others, justice was brought to them. 

Now there is no doubt that those who 

wish to do harm to America know they 

do so at their own peril. 

Today, it is clear our men and women 

in uniform and our intelligence community will never rest. They will never 

waiver. We have come a long way since 

September 11, and we owe so much to 

those men and women and the families 

who support them. Today, we join to 

show the world that our Nation is 

united and resolved to defend our freedom and safeguard our liberty against 

any enemy. 

We also take time to remember those 

who perished on September 11 and to 

remember their families with a special 

prayer. We reflect on the heroism of 

the firefighters, police officers, medical 

workers, city officials, and ordinary 

citizens who gave their own lives trying to save others. 

Each of us has been affected by 9/11. 

On September 11 we showed the world a 

brand of resilience that could only be 

made in America. In the minutes, 

hours, and days after the attacks, 

Americans showed their amazing propensity for compassion, sacrifice, and 

selflessness. Charity, voluntarism, and 

a reawakening of the American spirit 

guided us through those weeks directly 

after the attacks. Men and women 

waited in lines for hours to give blood, 

children donated their savings to help 

with relief efforts, communities sponsored clothing drives, and different 

faith groups held interfaith services. 

Our response showed the world that 

Americans have an unquenchable love 

of freedom and democracy. 

Now, 11 years later, I stand before 

you, always remembering that stunningly clear day that was to be forever 

ingrained into our national identity. 

My prayers are still with those who 

suffered, those still suffering, and those 

we lost. But time has taught me that 

the way to honor the victims of 9/11 is 

to come together as we did in the days 

and months after 9/11. On that day, we 

were truly united. September 11 was 

not an attack on Blacks, Whites, Christians, Jews, or Muslims or on conservatives or liberals. It was an attack on 

all of us, and we came together accordingly. We helped our neighbors and we 

helped strangers. We reaffirmed our 

commitment to justice and the rule of 

law. On that day we were reminded 

that the best parts of our American 

character will forever trump any opponent. 

So as I stand before you today, I encourage all Americans to nurture the 

best parts of our common American 

character. What is that character? It 

was the selflessness and courage of a 

New York City firefighter running into 

a smoking tower and up the stairs 

when everyone else was running down. 

It was the composure, confidence, and 

decency of bystanders helping perfect 

strangers. It was the sense of country 

that caused many to answer the call of 

duty and enlist in the war on terror. 

It was the faith people showed in 

their fellow citizens that allowed for 

empathy, not hate to define us afterwards. On this day, let’s not only 

mourn for those we lost but let’s vow 

to them to be as good as they would expect us to be. 

Mr. President, 9/11 was intended to 

bring this country to new lows but instead we achieved new highs. Keep the 

memories of 9/11 in our hearts and let 

them guide our actions, actions that 

show each other and the world how 

good we are and how good we can be. 

Archibald MacLeish wrote, ‘‘There 

are those who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man 

and mind, is nothing but a dream. They 

are right. It is the American dream.’’ 

Surely 9/11 was a nightmare horrific. 

As horrific and cruel as it was, it cannot extinguish the dream. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming. 

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 

business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

TRIBUTE TO WENDY GNEHM

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have often 

said how blessed I am to have found a 

group of people who are strongly committed to the future of Wyoming, the 

West, and the United States to serve on 

my staff. If being a Senate staff were 

an Olympic event, I have no doubt I 

would be the coach of one of the Senate 

dream teams. I believe they would be 

the gold medal winners. I am that 

proud of them. 

Today I wish to express my appreciation to one of my long-time staffers 

who will be returning home to run a 

business in Wyoming. She is Wendy 

Gnehm, and although we are going to 

miss her, we are also proud of her decision to return home to raise her family 

with her husband Ed, because there is 

no better place for families and children than Wyoming. We wish them 

both the best and we are confident as 

she is that they have made the right 

decision. 

Although Wendy has been part of my 

staff for quite some time, her family, 

her husband’s family, and my own family have been close for a lot longer 

than that. Wendy’s mother Sharon was 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6092 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 11, 2012 

the one who first introduced me to 

Diana, now my wife, on a blind date in 

Denver when Sharon was in town looking for a bridal gown. 

It was not long thereafter that Diana 

was looking for one too, which means 

we knew Wendy’s parents long before 

she was born. So we have known Wendy 

for all of her life. I remember when 

Wendy was in high school. She set her 

sights on coming to Washington to 

serve as a page in the House of Representatives. It was a difficult goal, but 

with her determination, her abilities, 

and her good grades she was able to 

make it happen. 

Wendy’s time in Washington as a 

page must have given her the idea of 

coming to college here, which she then 

began to pursue in earnest. So when 

the time was right, I agreed to write 

her a letter of recommendation to the 

George Washington University, as an 

alum and Wyoming liaison for the 

school. I was glad to be of help, but 

Wendy’s credentials spoke for themselves and soon she was headed back to 

Washington, DC, to attend one of the 

finest schools in the country. 

Later, when I came to Washington to 

serve in the Senate, I had a swearingin reception for friends and extended 

family to mark the beginning of this 

new and great adventure in my life. 

And of course Wendy was there. It was 

at that reception that she met the son 

of my college roommate, Skip Gnehm, 

and they started to date. Their romance blossomed while she served as 

an intern for me, and it started to 

occur to them and to Diana and me 

how all three of our families could soon 

be permanently intertwined. What a 

great gift for all of us. Soon Wendy was 

looking for a wedding gown of her own 

and she and Ed were married. 

Not long after their marriage, Ed and 

Wendy moved to Kuwait to work. They 

absorbed a great deal of knowledge 

about the culture and the way of life in 

the Middle East. When they returned 

to the United States and made their 

way back to Washington, DC, I learned 

that Wendy was looking for a job. At 

the time I happened to be looking for 

someone who could help me handle 

constituent mail and services. She was 

quickly promoted to legislative assistant specializing in the foreign relations 

field. I could not think of a better individual to take on those responsibilities 

than Wendy. I was right. Wendy has 

been a great help with those difficult 

issues ever since. She did so well, in 

fact, that I did not hesitate to expand 

her responsibilities to include defense, 

veterans affairs, transportation, and 

the Judiciary Committee agenda when 

the opportunity presented itself. 

Wendy has worked on so many issues of 

importance over the years—defense, 

with the focus on the United States Air 

Force and missile communities, to 

helping start the Air Force Caucus, 

veterans health, United Nations reform, Cuba travel, immigration, gun 

rights, to name a few. 

She is now my senior legislative assistant, a title and post she has earned 

with her hard work and determination 

to make a difference. As my senior legislative assistant, she has been a captain in the legislative office and she 

has always made herself available to 

help guide and direct our efforts as a 

legislative team. She is also there to 

provide some good advice on the issues 

that are coming up and how we can 

best focus our efforts to obtain the results we are working together to 

achieve. 

Now she and her husband are packing 

up and moving to Sheridan, WY, where 

Wendy grew up. They will be running a 

business there and providing some good 

jobs to the community and some support to the local community economy. 

It is a restaurant, so they will be providing some good food to people in the 

area too. Although we are sorry to see 

them go, we could not be happier that 

they are returning to Wyoming. I always tell the people from Wyoming 

who come to work for me: Enjoy your 

Washington experience and learn all 

you can every day you are here. Tomorrow, when you find yourself married with children, do not hesitate to 

start looking for a way to get back 

home. 

As I said, and it bears repeating because it is one of life’s great truths: 

There is no better place to raise your 

family than Wyoming, where you were 

born, where your roots are strong, and 

your family is nearby to give you the 

love, guidance, and support that helped 

to make you the person you are today. 

Of course, it is no surprise that the 

place that is calling Wendy home is one 

of the most beautiful on Earth—Wyoming. 

In the years to come, Wyoming will 

teach Wendy’s children all about being 

individuals, trusting in your instincts, 

about facing the future with confidence 

and faith. It is a great lesson to be 

learned, and there is no better place to 

learn it than the great outdoors and 

open spaces and magnificent mountains of Wyoming, where life is centered around being a part of the great 

splendor and creation of God, and with 

a strong sense of community. 

For team Enzi, this was a good-news, 

bad-news moment. The bad news is we 

are losing a very special staffer, a good 

friend, and a member of our extended 

family, someone who has given so 

much to everyone she has known or 

worked with here in my office. The 

good news is we are not only gaining a 

constituent who knows us and understands the work we do every day, Wyoming is gaining another family that 

will forever define for others what is so 

great about being from the West. 

Diana and I send our best wishes to 

Wendy, Ed, and their children, who 

must be looking forward to the opportunity to live the life that made Wendy 

what she is today. 

Wendy, we could not be more excited 

for you and for the great opportunities 

that lie ahead as you begin the new 

chapter in your life, the great adventure of coming home to Wyoming. We 

know we will miss seeing you every 

day, but when we are back home and 

traveling around in your area, we will 

expect to see you at our official functions and when we stop by your new 

business. May God bless you and be 

with you and your family. Good luck, 

Wendy. 

I yield the floor 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I 

suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

REMEMBERING 9/11

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, 

today marks a time in America that 

must always in the future be remembered. It cannot be forgotten, because 

it was the worst day on American soil 

in modern times. The worst day. It was 

the attack on the World Trade Center 

in New York, Shanksville, PA, and the 

Pentagon. 

These attacks put together such a 

horrific toll, we must constantly be reminded. And we are every day of the 

year. We are reminded how terrible 

this attack was. It was unimaginable, 

the pictures that we saw on TV. If anyone turned on the TV, on almost every 

station there was a picture of the 

strike at the World Trade Center, an 

airplane running into it. And the first 

thing that was thought—and unfortunately I was out of the country when 

this took place; I heard about it on the 

radio, and saw people in the country I 

was in weeping for this great America. 

We thought it was an accidental thing. 

We are not far from an airport, 

Teterboro Airport in New Jersey— 

maybe that it was an errant pilot, 

probably a single-engine airplane. 

Nothing could have been further from 

the truth. This was a designed attack 

on this building with all of the particulars that the terrorists had to have: 

How long would it take for the steel to 

melt, where is the best place to strike, 

what can the consequences of an attack such as this be? Unimaginable, as 

I earlier said. 

In my home State of New Jersey, we 

lost the second highest number of lives 

of any State in the country. More than 

700 people from New Jersey perished in 

this terrible onslaught. September 11, 

2001, changed our country forever. We 

see it and we are reminded about it 

every day of the year. If you want to 

enter many buildings, you have to 

identify yourself; you want to get in an 

airplane, you have to identify yourself; 

you want to get in these buildings, you 

have to identify yourself. This is a 

habit that grew out of the fear of terrorism. We have over 200,000 people employed to protect us against a terrorist 

attack. Alhough it was 11 years ago, 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6093 

few Americans will forget how that 

peaceful Tuesday turned into one of 

the most unpleasant days, most painful 

days, most heartfelt days on American 

soil. We still feel the pain and the sadness of that day. And when we think 

about it, the biggest price, of course, 

was paid by the families, the families 

who lost a son or a daughter or a husband or a wife or a grandparent or a 

friend or a neighbor. The loss was with 

excruciating pain. We lost nearly 3,000 

American lives at the World Trade Center and in Pennsylvania and at the 

Pentagon—3,000 American lives in a 

single day. I am reminded, since I 

served in the Army during World War 

II, that Pearl Harbor had fewer casualties than did the attack that day; that 

it outdid the number killed immediately at D-day. It was a terrible tragedy that struck our country. 

Forty-one States and territories and 

more than 90 countries lost at least a 

member, a person from that tragedy. 

Imagine, over 90 countries, 41 States 

and territories; and 343 firefighters and 

60 police officers were among those who 

died as they answered desperate calls 

for help. These people were not present 

in the building, typically. They came 

to the building while the flames were 

there and the soot and the dirt was 

falling and the building collapsing. 

They went into those buildings to help 

people who were screaming and pleading for help. It has been 11 years, but 

many Americans are still sick and 

more than 71,000 Americans are still 

having their health monitored because 

of exposure to the dust, the asbestos, 

and to the chemicals that filled the air. 

As we remember those we have lost, 

we have to let our grief serve as a reminder of our resilience and to rebuild 

our strength. While the scars of 9/11 

may never fully heal, we take some 

comfort in knowing that in our fight 

back, we have, in some ways, confirmed our fight against terrorism. 

Osama bin Laden will never take another innocent American life. But we 

have to remember that although bin 

Laden’s influence has been eliminated, 

there are lots of people who want to 

follow in his footsteps in plotting 

against America. 

The everyday lives of all Americans 

have changed forever. We now live in a 

state of constant vigilance to prevent 

another attack. I remember not too 

long ago, we used to have announcements that this is an orange color day 

or a green day or whatever, denoting 

the risk of an attack from a terrorist 

organization or an individual. Because 

of 9/11, over 200,000 Americans go to 

work every day at the Department of 

Homeland Security to protect us at 

airports or at buildings or gatherings 

where we have to show an ID to gain 

entry. So that day made a huge difference in the way we function. It costs 

time, it costs money, and it costs inconvenience. Nothing, however, as I 

earlier said, compares to the loss of a 

loved one. 

We are determined now to remain 

diligent and strong, despite the face of 

terrorism that is frequently depicted 

these days. As Americans gather today 

in tribute to those we lost, we have to 

remember to keep alive the memories 

of these Americans who perished for 

being in the place they were in and not 

for anything they did wrong. So we 

have to resolve to continue the work of 

keeping our families safe, our communities strong, and to be reminded about 

that, we still see the direct result from 

that attack, with 71,000 people, including more than 8,000 from New Jersey, 

who are currently being monitored for 

health conditions that resulted from 

the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. 

That is 70,000 people who are having 

their health monitored and more than 

14,000 responders and 2,500 community 

residents who are currently sick and 

receiving treatment from the World 

Trade Center Health Program. Many 

have perished, and we passed a law to 

offer compensation and health care for 

those who are still suffering from the 

results of that terrible day. 

With that, let me just say I think we 

have to remember we must stay strong. 

Unfortunately, there cannot be any relaxation. When we see the Olympic 

games or the Super Bowl or days that 

mark pleasant competition and bonding and youth and energy, we remember those days over 11 years ago. 

It is hard to take much consolation, 

except we know one thing; that we cannot stop protecting our citizens, our 

people, wherever they are in the 

world—wherever they are in the world. 

We have seen attacks take place on foreign soil from people who don’t know 

who they are; perhaps some knowing 

they are American travelers or American diplomats. But there is, again, little satisfaction until one day the world 

turns more sensible and respects 

human life. We hope that is a situation 

that is forever reflected upon and never 

forgotten. 

With that, I yield the floor, and I 

suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

RYAN BUDGET

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I came over 

earlier to speak and talk about a dedicated staff person of mine who is moving back to Wyoming, but I had to wait 

about 30 minutes while I listened to the 

Senator from Iowa talk about a Romney-Ryan budget. There is no such 

thing. Governor Romney hasn’t put 

forward a budget for this group. Congressman RYAN, of course, was the 

chairman of the Budget Committee in 

the House, and he was obligated to do 

a budget. He did a budget—something 

the Senate hasn’t done. 

I don’t think we can complain about 

a budget when we have gone 3 years 

without a budget. There is a timeline 

for a budget around here. We are supposed to have a budget finished by 

April 15 of each year, but we have gone 

3 years with no budget. 

The President submitted his budget 

to us, and that is what we are supposed 

to work from in the Budget Committee. I am on the Budget Committee, 

and we have had a little discussion in 

the Budget Committee. We haven’t gotten to do the budget debate on the 

floor, which is one with unlimited 

amendments, but we have gotten to 

vote on the President’s budget. At 

least Congressman RYAN got some 

votes for his budget. The President’s 

last two budgets have been voted on by 

this body and there hasn’t even been a 

single Democrat who was willing to 

vote for that budget—not a single one. 

The President couldn’t persuade one 

person from his party to go along with 

the plan he had for this country. 

You know what would happen in a 

corporation if the chairman of the 

board or the president presented a 

budget to his board of directors and 

they rejected it unanimously. He would 

be looking for a new job. I think I have 

heard some suggestions along that line. 

Do we want to continue with out-ofcontrol spending? That is what a budget controls. That is where the caps are 

put on and it lays out what is the most 

we can spend. We actually ought to be 

doing that, as we used to do it, where 

there were multiple-year caps, and we 

would be stuck with the far-out caps 

we projected. It is time we had a balanced budget around here. 

I applauded the President when he 

named a deficit commission. That was 

a great thing. I was a cosponsor on a 

bill that came before us, and we didn’t 

have enough votes to pass that bill, but 

the President went ahead and did a deficit commission and he appointed two 

outstanding people to chair that budget commission—Erskine Bowles, who 

was the Chief of Staff for President 

Clinton, and Alan Simpson, who was a 

long-time Senator from the West, a 

member of the revenue committee— 

and they did some diligent work with 

the commission and came up with a 

plan. They actually came up with a 

plan for how we could save America. 

I heard the Senator from Iowa say: 

Some of these people who are talking 

are talking like we are broke. You 

know what. We are pretty close to 

broke. When the national debt is the 

same as the gross national product, we 

are in trouble. In the United States, 

every man, woman, and child owes a 

shade over $50,000. We have been seeing 

the riots in Greece and Italy. In Italy, 

they only owe $40,000 per person. In 

Greece, they only owe $39,000 per person. Yes, we are the most resilient 

country in the world, and that is why 

we have a little bit of breathing room. 

But it is not inhaling time. It is time 

to figure out what we are going to do 

about it. 

I did expect, after the President appointed this deficit commission and 

when they came back with a report— 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6094 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 11, 2012 

and it didn’t have enough to force us to 

have a vote, but it was a report that 

would solve the situation—I thought 

for sure at the State of the Union 

speech the President would paint the 

same bleak picture they painted in 

order to get the deficit report they got. 

But instead, he promoted another stimulus. 

Had he painted that same bleak picture and at the end of his speech said, 

I am not telling you tonight how to 

solve it, but in 2 weeks, when my budget is delivered to the Senate, you will 

see what the deficit commission said 

we ought to be doing and we will do it. 

I think that by about May of that year, 

we would have hassled through that 

situation, and we would have adopted 

most of what they had in that. It would 

not have been easy. There would have 

been a little bit of pain, but it would 

have had a lot of gain. I think, by this 

point in time, the President would 

have been a hero—instead of hearing 

the question: Are you better off now 

than you were 4 years ago? 

We can’t continue the out-of-control 

spending we have had. Let me give an 

example of what we are doing. We are 

doing it without a budget, but here is 

what we are doing. The highway bill, 

that is one of the most important 

bills—everybody admits—for America. 

We have to have transportation in this 

country, and the highway bill is one of 

the major ways we do that. It creates 

jobs because people go out and build 

the roads or repair the roads, and it 

makes a difference. 

But here is how we funded the highway bill: In the Finance Committee, I 

suggested we needed to increase the 

tax on gasoline. That is the tax that 

funds the highway trust fund, which is 

the sole source of money for building 

the highways before. But we haven’t 

raised that since 1993, and it ran out of 

money. 

The deficit commission President 

Obama appointed suggested we needed 

to raise the gas tax 5 cents a year for 

three consecutive years if we wanted to 

build highways. In the Finance Committee I said, I am going to put in 

something a little bit more modest to 

see if we have any support for it. I am 

going to put in something that just 

deals with inflation on the gas tax. 

I was told we wouldn’t have a vote in 

the Finance Committee on it—and we 

didn’t have a vote in the Finance Committee on it. And when it came to the 

floor, we did not have a vote on that on 

the floor because we weren’t going to 

raise any taxes. Well, let me tell you 

what the bill does: There is a tax increase in the bill. We just didn’t talk 

about it. I talked about it, but not 

many people talked about it. There is a 

tax increase in the bill. There is a tax 

on any private pension fund in America. That goes into a trust fund, supposedly. 

I have a little problem with what we 

call trust funds around here, because I 

don’t have trust any of them. That is 

going into a trust fund so that if a 

company goes out of business, the people who were promised a pension will 

get at least 60 percent of what they 

were promised. That is what that tax is 

for. That is why we do the tax on private pensions. The Pension Benefit 

Guarantee Corporation guarantees that 

people will get a portion of what they 

were promised in a private pension, and 

so we raised the tax to make sure that 

would be there. Then, before it got 

there, we diverted it, we stole it, we 

stripped it, and we put it in the highway bill. And we didn’t just take 2 

years’ worth. That is how long the bill 

covers highway construction. It says in 

the next 2 years all the highways that 

we will build and how much they will 

cost. But from the Pension Benefit 

Guarantee Corporation tax that we increased, we took all of that for 10 years 

to build 2 years’ worth of highways. I 

don’t know of anybody who would consider that to be good financial management. Highways are essential, but that 

is not good financial management. We 

have to stop this trend. And we particularly have to stop stealing from 

trust funds. 

There is one other source of trust 

fund in there I am particularly sensitive to. There is an abandoned mine 

land fund. This is a fund that was set 

up where coal mines in the West would 

get an additional tax—which we agreed 

to and the companies agreed to. Half of 

that tax would stay with the State 

where the coal was mined, and the 

other half would go to the eastern 

States to reclaim abandoned mines. It 

is a good idea. Well, Wyoming mines 

most of the coal in the United States, 

so Wyoming gets most of that money. 

There is a little provision that they 

stuck in there to affect Wyoming—and 

I don’t think ought to be the sole 

source of revenue for funding all the 

highways in the United States, but 

they took that abandoned mine land 

money and said that would go into this 

highway fund. That is a trust fund too. 

We heard about it at 2:00 in the morning the day before we voted on this bill, 

and it was a total shock to us that they 

were giving this to the trust fund that 

was billed as a massive coalition between the East and the West, between 

companies and between miners who relied on the companies that went out of 

business for their health care. And 

abandoned mine land money takes care 

of that, too. But they said, Well, for 

Wyoming we think you get too much 

money, so we are going to strip out the 

half that you were promised and didn’t 

get for years and years and years while 

they took care of their own problems. 

That is in there too and that is in there 

for a 10-year period for 2 years’ worth 

of highway construction. 

So when we say that America is not 

broke, America is not broke. But it 

isn’t fixed either. It needs to be fixed, 

and it needs to be fixed legitimately, 

upfront, telling the people exactly 

what we are doing. There is going to 

have to be a lot of things that have to 

be done in order to do it. 

I have suggested one way it can be 

done—and I have tried to cut things before, and I know that if we try to cut 

a single program, any single program— 

and we have to cut a lot of programs— 

that program will inundate Washington with a few good examples of 

what that program has done, even 

though audits of it say that is not what 

happened. But those people will flood 

here, they will talk to their Senators, 

we will feel sorry for them, we will approve the program, and we will continue the program. It is almost impossible to cut a program around here. It 

is hard to cut the amount of increase 

that program gets, let alone make an 

actual cut to a program or—Lord help 

us—eliminate a program altogether. 

So what are we going to do? I have a 

1-percent solution. That is to take 1 

penny out of every dollar the American 

government spends and eliminate that, 

cut that, save that—1 penny out of 

every dollar. People across America, 

when I talk to them about this, say, I 

have personally had to make a bigger 

cut than that. I could make 1 percent; 

the government ought to be able to 

take 1 percent. And if the government 

made 1 percent for between 5 and 7 

years, our budget would balance. That 

is a lot of discipline, but it is a little 

pain for a lot of gain. And I am pretty 

sure if we were able to do that, at the 

end of 1 year people would say, You 

know, that didn’t hurt that badly, and 

we ought to go for 2 and speed this 

thing up. Because I don’t know how 

much time we have before interest 

rates go up, and when interest rates go 

up, they can use up all of the revenue 

we have from taxes to pay the interest 

on the loans we have out there. We 

have tremendous debt out there, and 

we had better start taking care of it. I 

have looked at some ways to do that, 

and I will share those at another time. 

But I hope I don’t hear a lot about 

the Romney-Ryan budget here on the 

floor when there hasn’t been a budget 

presented and voted on by the other 

side. You have got to have the courage 

to make some cuts. You have got to 

have the courage to put forward a 

budget that is on a track—a track 

somehow to getting us back to solvency. And it better happen pretty 

fast. 

So I think I am going to feel sorry 

for whomever gets elected President, 

and perhaps whomever is going to be in 

this body and in the House next year, 

because it is not going to be a pleasant 

task. We are going to have to buckle 

down and do the right thing. 

I got to meet earlier with the new 

Prime Minister of Italy, and I was very 

impressed with him. He was talking 

about what he has to do right now to 

pull them out of their deficit. Remember, we owe $50,000 per person. They 

owe $40,000 per person. They are taking 

the hard steps. He has laid out a plan, 

he has talked to the people involved. 

Over there they have strikes whenever 

they get upset with the government. 

He had to talk to some of the labor 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6095 

unions. He said, I talked to them and 

they went out on strike for 2 hours. Of 

course, usually a minimum strike is 3 

days over there, so he felt pretty good 

about that. But he said with the 

changes that he has to make—and it 

was a reflection on what we are looking at too—probably none of the people 

will be there next year. Those in the 

cabinet who were sitting next to him 

were a little bit shocked to hear that. 

I think if he does the plan, people will 

appreciate the way he is saving their 

country and they will put him back in 

again. 

But we are looking at some difficult 

times and we need good solutions. It is 

going to mean working across the aisle 

to make sure that gets done. Our time 

is short. But this is the most resilient 

country in the world, and the rest of 

the world is relying on America. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado. 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I came to the floor to commemorate the events of 11 years ago on September 11. But I want to respond to my 

friend and fellow westerner Senator 

ENZI from Wyoming. I appreciate the 

sentiments and the tone of his remarks. I respect greatly his financial 

acumen. We know the training Senator 

ENZI has, and I appreciate his call to 

action hopefully as soon as possible. 

I would like to stay in Washington 

and continue to work on the SimpsonBowles architecture. I know my colleague from Colorado, Senator BENNET, 

has spent a great deal of time as a 

member of the Gang of Six plus two 

crafting legislative language to put the 

Simpson-Bowles recommendations into 

effect. 

I did, however, want to set the record 

straight as I read it and as I understand it, which is that we have had a 

Budget Control Act that many of us 

voted for last year which in effect is a 

budget for 2012 and 2013. 

I ask unanimous consent to have the 

documentation of the Budget Control 

Act printed in the RECORD. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

BUDGET CONTROL ACT CONTAINED BUDGET FOR

2012 AND 2013 

SEC. 106. SENATE BUDGET ENFORCEMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

(1) For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 through April 

15, 2012, including section 300 of that Act, and 

enforcing budgetary points of order in prior 

concurrent resolutions on the budget, the allocations, aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the Senate in the 

same manner as for a concurrent resolution 

on the budget for fiscal year 2012 with appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 

and 2013 through 2021. 

(2) For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 after April 15, 

2012, including section 300 of that Act, and 

enforcing budgetary points of order in prior 

concurrent resolutions on the budget, the allocations, aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(2) shall apply in the Senate in the 

same manner as for a concurrent resolution 

on the budget for fiscal year 2013 with appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2012 

and 2014 through 2022. 

PUBLIC LAW 112–25—AUG. 2, 2011 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The language reads: 

. . . the allocations, aggregates, and levels 

set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the 

Senate in the same manner as for a current 

resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012 

. . . 

That language is duplicated below in 

the next paragraph for 2013. 

I think I hear my friend from Wyoming suggesting that the process the 

Senate periodically uses to determine a 

budget is helpful and follows regular 

order, and I agree. But the Congress in 

the last 2 years has been at loggerheads. There have been more impasses 

in the last 2 years than I remember in 

my 12 previous years. But we do have a 

budget in place. It is a budget that reduces Federal spending and is a downpayment on the hard work we have to 

do going forward. 

The Ryan budget was promulgated by 

Congressman RYAN. I was elected the 

same year as Congressman RYAN to the 

House. I have respect for Congressman 

RYAN and his constituents; I just happen to disagree with his priorities. His 

budget proposal sets priorities; it is a 

template. And if you really study what 

Congressman RYAN includes, there are 

concerns that I have that I think are 

reflected by not just members of my 

caucus but many Americans: The plan 

lacks balance, and it doesn’t balance at 

least until 2040, which is not how it is 

advertised. 

Why? There is no contribution from 

revenue. There is an increase in defense 

spending. And in my opinion, it requires extraordinary and unsustainable 

cuts to government services. In fact, 

the Federal Government would be cut 

in half. I don’t think there is anybody 

who thinks that is a realistic goal. 

President Reagan’s economic adviser 

Bruce Bartlett was pretty tough on the 

Ryan plan. He called it a monstrosity, 

and pointed out that the Ryan plan is 

backed up by make-believe numbers 

and unreasonable assumptions. 

I ask unanimous consent to have 

printed in the RECORD the statements 

of Mr. Bartlett. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

FORMER REAGAN ECONOMIC ADVISOR

BARTLETT ON RYAN BUDGET PLAN

Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich would receive huge tax 

cuts while the social safety net would be 

shredded to pay for them. Even as an opening bid to begin budget negotiations with the 

Democrats, the Ryan plan cannot be taken 

seriously. It is less of a wish list than a fairy 

tale utterly disconnected from the real 

world, backed up by make-believe numbers 

and unreasonable assumptions. Ryan’s plan 

isn’t even an act of courage; it’s just pandering to the Tea Party. A real act of courage would have been for him to admit, as all 

serious budget analysts know, that revenues 

will have to rise well above 19 percent of 

GDP to stabilize the debt. 

Former Reagan Administration Economic 

Advisor, Bruce Bartlett, Capital Gains and 

Games Blog, Imbalanced Budget: Ryan Gives 

Wealthy a Free Pass, April 11, 2011. 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. In conclusion, I want to again underline that I 

find, as always, in Senator ENZI someone who is thoughtful, practical, and 

pragmatic. And I heard in his comments a call to action where everything would be on the table, including 

providing for greater solvency of Social 

Security and Medicare, for cutting 

spending and ending duplication, but 

also for looking for additional revenue, 

which I think we all agree we can start 

to do by simplifying the Tax Code, reducing rates, and then taking a look at 

individual tax rates. 

Mr. President, I was here 11 years 

ago. It was a very similar day to today; 

a beautiful fall day, low humidity. For 

us Coloradans, low humidity is something we expect in all cases, with bluebird skies. But it turned into a terrible 

day with terrible events, and I thought 

I would reflect on what they mean for 

our country 11 years later. 

These attacks are forever etched in 

our collective memory. We lost 3,000 

fellow Americans. It was a diverse cohort of Americans. Every religion was 

represented, every race, and every region. It was something that even as I 

try and think about it again, I am almost overwhelmed. 

But we also have another memory associated with that day; and that was 

the amazing, beyond belief, selflessness 

and bravery of our first responders and 

the men and women of uniform as well 

as the resolve of whole communities 

who came together to help and comfort 

one another. Late in that day, lawmakers came together on the U.S. Capitol steps, as we did today, to say, We 

stand united. 

During this time, Americans seeking 

some good to come out of these acts of 

sheer evil looked to each other and to 

their leaders in Washington to contribute to a greater cause of unity. At 

such a dark time, we saw the very best 

of America: a Nation, a community, 

and a people willing to stand together 

in the face of adversity that we didn’t 

initially understand or comprehend. 

That strength of unity brought us together, and over the last decade we 

have made great strides in combating 

the evil of terrorism. 

We owe a debt of gratitude, a deep 

debt of gratitude to those on the front 

lines of that battle. Intelligence officers, our men and women in uniform, 

and countless others have relentlessly 

pursued our enemies who seek to do us 

harm. We must honor their sacrifices. 

That brings me to this point. Every 

time a veteran is unemployed or has 

injuries that are not well treated or 

finds himself or herself in a place so 

dark that suicide seems like the only 

way out, we failed in our most solemn 

duty. We must provide the best possible health care, services, and benefits 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6096 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 11, 2012 

to those few Americans who are willing 

to risk anything and everything for us. 

We should be ashamed of anything less. 

That is why it is fitting today, on the 

anniversary of 9/11, that the Senate 

voted to move forward on legislation to 

help post-9/11 veterans find jobs. Congress and the administration have been 

focused on helping these vulnerable 

veterans find jobs. We passed legislation. The President has championed 

initiatives providing tax incentives and 

grants to businesses hiring veterans 

and offering veterans job training programs, but still the unemployment 

rate for veterans of the Afghanistan 

and Iraq wars remains higher than for 

the general population and much higher for veterans age 18 to 24. That simply is not acceptable. We can and we 

must do better. 

The bill we are going to consider, the 

Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012, is a 

solid step in the right direction. We all 

recognize the obstacles that veterans 

face in translating their military experience into civilian jobs. We know that 

is the case. This commonsense legislation will attempt to smooth this transition by connecting veterans with 

good-paying jobs that fit their skill 

sets and provide our communities with 

opportunities to hire veterans as firefighters, police officers, to work in the 

public safety sector—to work in any 

sector. When our veterans believe in 

themselves, they are up to any charge; 

they are up for any mission. 

I have the great privilege—as does, I 

know, the Presiding Officer—to serve 

on the Armed Services Committee. I 

also serve on the Senate Intelligence 

Committee. As a member of those committees I urge all of us to pass this bill 

as soon as possible. There is still time. 

We could perhaps offer it tonight. I 

could offer a unanimous consent request. We need to do this—and I am 

completely serious, Mr. President—to 

provide our heroes with a small measure of what we owe them for their incredible service and sacrifice. 

As I think more widely, as I consider 

what I have heard at home from Coloradans far and wide, passing this bill 

alone is not enough. Looking back at 

the days and months after September 

11, I cannot help but admire our Nation’s resolve and the sense of togetherness we had in facing a shared challenge. But I also cannot help but be 

well aware that 11 years on we are now 

a nation at odds. Partisanship is at an 

all-time high, congressional gridlock 

prevents even commonsense ideas from 

winning the day, and middle-class 

Americans just wonder when businesses will have the certainty they 

need to begin hiring again. 

For me, it seems a powerful argument and a powerful insight that a better future for our country can be and 

is, if we will hear it, grounded in our 

Nation’s deep-seated respect for the 

courageous feats and sacrifices of those 

who answer the call of duty. Our military men and women have done their 

job. The public safety officers in the 

city of Aurora, back in July when we 

experienced such a terrible shooting, 

have done their job. Now it is, here in 

the Congress, time for us to do our job. 

It is not too late for us to harness the 

gratitude and the admiration that we 

have for those who have given everything for the United States and come 

together once again to do right by the 

Nation they have fought so hard to secure. 

As we remember the events of September 11 and honor those men and 

women in uniform who fought so hard 

to keep America safe, we must recognize that our actions, not just our 

words, in the months ahead may be the 

greatest way to show our appreciation 

for their sacrifice. 

Let’s employ the doggedness of our 

military men and women, that 

doggedness that they exhibit on a daily 

basis in order to address the shared 

challenges of our time, to work together and to cast aside the partisan 

differences that stand in the way of our 

future prosperity. The American people 

deserve no less. 

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise 

today to discuss an amendment I recently filed with Senator LEAHY to the 

Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012. We 

filed this amendment to ensure that 

veterans service organizations are provided access to Federal surplus property as we intended when we introduced the FORVETS Act of 2010. This 

law provides that veterans service organizations should be categorized as eligible nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations that may acquire surplus personal property for the purposes of education or public health. 

Unfortunately, the General Services 

Administration has interpreted this 

law in the strictest of terms. In its 

published guidelines, veterans service 

organizations may acquire the surplus 

property for the purposes of education 

or public health but with minimal 

flexibility in what an educational or 

public health service may be. For example, acquiring a van to transport a 

disabled veteran to a doctor’s appointment may not be considered an eligible 

use for a veterans organization under 

current guidelines. 

This amendment makes the legislative modification necessary for GSA to 

carry out the original intent of the 

FORVETS Act of 2010. 

The National Association of State 

Agencies for Surplus Property, 

NASASP, has identified the need for 

this legislative modification to ensure 

that veterans service organizations are 

able to receive surplus equipment to 

enable them to better provide the critical services they offer for our Nation’s 

veterans. 

Veterans groups whose work enhances the lives of countless veterans 

every day benefit from access to these 

goods just as other service organizations do. Many veterans organizations 

offer career development and job training assistance to our Nation’s veterans, 

yet often lack the computer equipment 

needed to best assist our veterans in 

the often difficult transition from military service to the civilian work force. 

These are just a few examples of the 

needs that veterans service organizations have. This amendment is one way 

to say ‘‘thank you’’ to those Americans 

who have worn the uniform and to the 

families that supported them. In these 

challenging fiscal times, the need for 

excess federal property to be used for 

job training, rehabilitation, and other 

important assistance to our veterans is 

greater now more than ever. 

I urge my colleagues to support the 

inclusion of this amendment to the 

Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012. 

Mr. President, since 2004, active duty 

military suicides have more than doubled, and the problem only continues 

to get worse. The Army recently reported that in July of this year 38 of its 

soldiers took their lives, a rate of more 

than one per day. This is a tragedy of 

the highest magnitude and it is something that the Congress and the American people must not ignore. Action is 

needed now, and we must take every 

practical step that we can to help the 

military reverse this disturbing trend. 

Not only are we losing dozens of America’s finest each month, squandering 

precious talent that our Nation needs, 

but today’s soldiers are tomorrow’s 

veterans, and the crisis of mental and 

behavioral health that the epidemic of 

suicides represents foreshadows a troubling prospect for the future. 

In Afghanistan, we have invested billions of dollars and devoted some of the 

military’s best minds to protect our 

soldiers and give them the tools they 

need to reduce the threat of an improvised explosive devise attack. Unfortunately, we have only devoted a fraction 

of the same resources or creativity to 

suicide prevention, even though 

through early June 2012 military suicides had outpaced the number of combat deaths in Afghanistan. It is estimated that more than 250 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have taken 

their own lives this year. 

There is substantial evidence that 

prescription drug abuse is a major factor in military suicides. In its January 

2012 report Army 2020: Generating 

Health and Discipline in the Force, the 

Army found that 29 percent of suicides 

had a known history of psychotropic 

medication use including anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medicine, antipsychotics, and other controlled substances such as opioids. 

Active-duty drug use was a factor in 

more than a third of suicides where 

drug use could be determined and a factor in two-thirds of suicide attempts. 

The Army’s report recommends the establishment of a military drug takeback program to help combat prescription drug abuse in the ranks. Given 

that more than 49,000 soldiers were 

issued three or more psychotropic or 

controlled substance prescriptions last 

year and an estimated 3,500 soldiers illicitly used prescription drugs, it’s 

time we act on this recommendation. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6097 

At present, only the Drug Enforcement Administration has the inherent 

authority to conduct a drug take-back 

program. The Secure and Responsible 

Drug Disposal Act of 2010, however, 

provided the Attorney General the 

flexibility necessary to delegate similar authority to other agencies to conduct a drug take-back program. Thus 

far, however, the Attorney General has 

declined to act, and neither the Attorney General nor the DEA has provided 

mechanisms or authority to the military to establish its own drug takeback program. 

Senator LIEBERMAN and I, building on 

work done by Senator MURRAY, wrote 

the Attorney General in July of this 

year to request his support for efforts 

to reduce military suicides by allowing 

military treatment facilities to conduct controlled substance take-back 

and destruction programs. 

Senator LIEBERMAN and I understand 

that accountability of drugs must be 

strictly maintained and that these 

drugs must be prevented from being 

misused, abused, or from entering the 

black market. We are confident, however, that an accountable drug takeback program could be established at 

military treatment facilities with sufficient safeguards put in place to prevent diversion, misuse, theft, or loss of 

returned drugs. Military treatment facilities are unique, and the military 

has established successful accountability programs for handling nuclear 

weapons, conventional weapons, and 

classified materials. We have no reason 

to doubt that an appropriate degree of 

accountability could be established in 

a drug take-back program. 

Excluding the military from conducting drug take-back programs has a 

detrimental effect on the military’s 

ability to reduce controlled substance 

abuse in the Force, decrease non-medical use of prescription drugs, prevent 

diversion of controlled substances, and 

limit the possibility for accidental 

overdose and death for our servicemembers or their family members. 

Providing this authority will give the 

military one more tool in its efforts to 

reduce suicides. 

The loss of even one servicemember 

to a potentially preventable suicide involving controlled substance abuse or 

misuse is unacceptable. For that reason, Senator LIEBERMAN and I filed this 

amendment to the Veterans Jobs Corps 

Act. I urge my colleagues to support 

inclusion of this amendment in this 

legislation. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

BEGICH). The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

REMEMBERING 9/11

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, 

today we remember September 11, 2001, 

11 years ago, a Tuesday like today was, 

a beautiful day like today was, but a 

day of horror incited by a hateful ideology. We, of course, cannot afford to 

forget what happened, but let’s remember what can happen when Americans 

come together. 

On this national day of remembrance 

we honor those who lost their lives 11 

years ago, the daughters and sons, 

mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers from various walks of life and avenues of faith. We honor the families of 

the victims. We honor the survivors. 

We honor the courageous civil servants 

and first responders, most of them 

union members, who lost their lives 

and suffered illnesses because of their 

selflessness. We salute the servicemembers and their families who sacrificed 

so much since these tragic events. 

More than a decade later we all remember where we were on that clear 

Tuesday morning. I remember feeling 

the fear and uncertainty when gathering my staff at a location near the 

Capitol. Regardless of where we were 

on that fateful day, whether speaking 

English with a Brooklyn accent or as a 

first generation American learning 

English as a second language or those 

of you from the Midwest who perhaps 

speak with a bit of a Midwestern accent—although Midwesterners do not 

have an accent—we all came together. 

Regardless of where we worked—in a 

manufacturing plant in Cleveland or a 

farm near Lima—we came together. 

This is this spirit or solidarity we reaffirm today. 

Today we must come together again 

and focus on moving forward as one nation in spite of our differences. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent to dispense 

with the quorum call. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THE CHEVROLET

CRUZE

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. This weekend, I 

believe it was Saturday, I was in 

Lordstown, OH, celebrating the 2-year 

anniversary of the first Chevy Cruze 

that came off the Lordstown GM Chevy 

plant line. I was there the day the first 

Cruze came out. The first three cars— 

painted red, white, and blue—represented the determination of workers 

and that company and the Nation to 

succeed to bounce back, despite national naysayers who were willing to 

stand idly by while our economy 

stalled. 

We read it in newspapers, saw it on 

television, heard it on the radio how 

some elected officials not only wanted 

to turn their back on an industry that 

has provided middle-class wages, college educations, homes, and cars to 

millions of Americans, but a number of 

elected officials wanted to bet against 

the American automotive industry. 

During the height of the economic 

crisis, when American manufacturing 

was sputtering—and the Presiding Officer knows the statistics because he 

paid attention in his State of Alaska, 

which is not so much a manufacturing 

State but a State that contributes a 

lot to manufacturing. The Presiding 

Officer knows what has happened in 

this country. From 2000 to 2010, we lost 

5 million manufacturing jobs. That was 

one-third of all the manufacturing jobs 

in this country. Six thousand plants 

closed in the United States in that decade. Since 2010—and more on that in a 

moment—because of the auto rescue 

and because we have a Federal Government that is willing to enforce trade 

laws, we have seen a growth of 500,000 

manufacturing jobs, the first time we 

have seen month-to-month manufacturing job growth for almost every 

month for 2-plus years. It is the first 

time since 1999 this country has actually seen any manufacturing job 

growth. 

Some said: Let the industry go bankrupt. A Presidential candidate said—I 

believe his words to Detroit were along 

the lines of drop dead; that wasn’t 

something we wanted to do, to do anything to help that industry. They were 

willing to let the auto industry go 

bankrupt and then see what happened. 

Some of these naysayers thought it 

was OK to bail out Wall Street. They 

thought it was OK to pad the salaries 

of reckless bankers who drove our 

economy off the cliff. It wasn’t the 

nonunion autoworker in Marysville 

who built the Honda, it wasn’t the 

Chrysler autoworker in Toledo who 

built the Wrangler or the Liberty, it 

wasn’t the Chevy autoworker in 

Lordstown who built the Cruze, it 

wasn’t the autoworker in Defiance who 

built the engine or the glass worker in 

Crestline who made the glass for the 

Chevy Cruze or the aluminum worker 

in Cleveland or the steelworker in Middletown who caused the collapse of the 

economy and the problems with the 

banks. In many ways, they were 

blamed by the people who bet against 

America, who were willing to say it is 

OK to pad the salary of reckless bankers, even though they are the ones who 

drove the economy off the cliff. 

They railed against rescuing autoworkers in places such as Holmesville, 

Waverly, Middletown, and Youngstown. 

The easy road—and it wasn’t the easy 

road by a long shot—isn’t always the 

right path, not when this many jobs 

are at stake, paying these kind of 

wages, strengthening this middle-class. 

The Chevy Cruze represents what was 

at stake. Three days ago, when I was in 

Lordstown, we marked the day of the 2- 

year anniversary, how resilient we can 

be when we make decisions not based 

on politics but what is best for the 

country. Plain and simple, the auto 

rescue was the right choice. 

Last year, the Cruze was elected the 

Car of the Year by the North American 

Dealer Association. Now it is the bestselling compact car in America. My 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6098 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 11, 2012 

daughter drives one. My wife traded in 

her 6-year-old Pontiac Vibe and bought 

a Chevy Cruze. Just a few short years 

ago, 1,000 workers in Lordstown were 

laid off. Today, nearly 5,000 workers 

build one of the fastest selling small 

cars in the country. 

For people such as Glenn Johnson, 

who is the local President in the 

Lordstown assembly plant, the politically unpopular decision to save the 

auto industry was about saving the 

livelihood for hard-working families in 

Ohio and in the Midwest. Two years 

later, we are moving forward. GM profits are up. GM has been profitable for 

10 consecutive quarters. None of the 

naysayers thought it could possibly 

happen. None of the naysayers were 

willing to invest in GM and to find private capital. It only happened because 

taxpayers stepped forward because the 

government was willing to understand 

and recognize that this mattered for 

our country. 

GM has announced plans to make a 

$200 million additional investment in 

Lordstown, where they have added a 

third shift to produce the Chevy Cruze. 

Chrysler has invested tens of millions 

of dollars in Toledo. Honda has invested tens of millions of dollars in a 

new model in Marysville. Ford has invested tens of millions of dollars in 

Cleveland. All three American auto 

companies and the major U.S. auto 

transplant Honda have all made major 

investments in Ohio since the auto rescue. The Cruze epitomizes how essential the auto industry is in Ohio. 

The engine for the Cruze is made in 

Defiance, the transmission for the 

Cruze is made in Toledo, the brackets 

are made in Brunswick, the glass for 

the Wrangler is made in Crestline, the 

sound system for the Cruze is made in 

Springboro, the underneath steel for 

the Cruze comes from Middletown, the 

exposed steel comes from Cleveland, 

the seat frame comes from Lorain, the 

seats are made in Warren, and the aluminum for the Chevy Cruze Eco comes 

from Cleveland. The car is assembled 

by 5,000 workers in Lordstown, OH. 

This success story goes far beyond 

one State. In my State alone, hundreds 

of thousands of jobs are associated 

with the auto industry. There are 

120,000 Ohioans who are directly employed by automakers, dealers, and 

supply chain parts manufacturers. We 

know even with that success and even 

with the success of enforcing trade 

laws, which have turned into—as a result of enforcing trade rules, we have a 

new steel mill in Youngstown. More 

tires are made in Findlay and more 

aluminum is made in Heath and Sidney, OH. More steel is made in Lorain 

and Cleveland. 

Because we have enforced trade rules, 

that doesn’t mean we don’t need to do 

more. The economy is still not what it 

should be. Our unemployment rate 

from 2 years ago went from over 10.5 

percent to under 7.5 percent, but it is 

clearly still not enough because far too 

many workers in Ohio, Alaska and 

America and all over are underemployed or unemployed. 

We are moving in the right direction. 

Since January of 2010, after a full decade of manufacturing job loss from 2000 

to 2010, where 5 million manufacturing 

jobs were lost, we have gained 500,000 

manufacturing jobs in those 2 years. 

Supporting America means valuing 

workers. It is patriotic to support 

America’s middle class. When it comes 

to protecting American workers and 

supporting American manufacturers 

and boasting America’s middle class, 

we still have much to do. We have 

made major progress in the last years. 

We have much to do. We have no choice 

but to move forward. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous 

consent that the Senate proceed to a 

period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up 

to 10 minutes each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

REMEMBERING 9/11 

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in 

memory of an unspeakable tragedy 

that shook our great Nation free of the 

belief that we are an untouchable force 

in the modern world, 11 years ago 

today. 

Eleven years ago today an unspeakable tragedy shook our great Nation 

free of the belief that we are an untouchable force in the modern world. 

Today, as we honor the nearly 3,000 

innocent men, women, and children 

who lost their lives at the World Trade 

Center, the Pentagon, and in a field in 

Shanksville, PA, we must remember 

more than the pain and rage that followed the events of that Tuesday 

morning. 

I cannot help but compare that day 

to the morning of December 7, 1941, 

when Imperial Japan attacked Pearl 

Harbor, killing more than 2,400 sailors, 

soldiers, and civilians, and plunging 

our Nation into World War II. 

The bombing of Pearl Harbor moved 

me to put on the uniform and join 

thousands of my brothers in a fight 

that spanned across Europe and the 

Asia Pacific. 

Like Pearl Harbor, the events of September 11 forced our Nation to send 

troops into Afghanistan, and later it 

was used to help justify the invasion of 

Iraq. 

More than 6,000 of our brave men and 

women have died fighting in those 

countries, and, like World War II, the 

loss of life and American resources is 

staggering. 

These attacks on America, the wars 

that followed, and the aftermath where 

we searched for hope and dealt with the 

pain of loss, altered our national consciousness and fortified us for the future that we continue to work hard to 

build. 

To move forward, we must recognize 

that September 11 was a painful reminder that America must remain ever 

vigilant to the threats posed by foreign 

forces and those who abhor the freedom 

and equality that defines our great Nation. 

But most importantly, we have to 

understand the role America plays in 

the global community, and we must be 

respectful of our place and work hard 

to use what we have been blessed with 

to ensure that peace and good will 

reign, regardless of our differences. 

I speak from experience when I say 

that no matter the justification and no 

matter the final outcome, no nation, 

no people, escape from war unscathed. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, eleven 

years ago today, on a crisp early autumn morning much like today’s, I was 

at the Supreme Court for the semiannual meeting of the Judicial Conference when I got word of the first attack of 9/11. I quietly informed Chief 

Justice William Rehnquist, who was 

presiding over our meeting. Soon afterward we heard a muffled ‘‘bump,’’ followed by a report that a car bomb may 

have gone off across town at the State 

Department. Of course, we later 

learned that this had been the sound of 

another plane, as it slammed into the 

Pentagon. 

I remember later that day, evacuating my staff from the Russell Senate 

Building. I remember crossing along 

the West Front of the Capitol as two 

fighter jets streaked up the Mall. I remember the unnatural stillness of a big 

city in shock, similar only to what I 

saw as a law student at Georgetown, 

when a pall descended over Washington 

after the news that President John F. 

Kennedy had been killed. 

At this morning’s meeting of the Judicial Conference in that same room 

where we met 11 years ago on this date, 

several participants offered reflections 

about this somber anniversary. 

I noted that much of what holds our 

country together in times of crisis is 

the integrity of the three branches of 

our constitutional government. In recent times, for temporary political 

gain, there too often has been the 

temptation to tear down our 

foundational institutions, undermining 

the public’s faith and confidence in our 

system. Over time, that cannot help 

but erode that foundation. I pointed 

out that this was why, the day after 

the attacks 11 years ago, each and 

every Senator made the effort to be in 

his or her seat in an unmistakable gesture of unity of purpose. We knew that 

we had to reopen this emblem and pillar of American democracy, and I was 

proud to be in my seat representing 

Vermont when the Senate convened for 

business that next morning. 

Over this past decade, as Americans 

we have gathered each year on this 

date to remember the thousands of innocent lives that were taken so casually and so callously on that terrible 

morning. We also remember and honor 

the brave first responders and military 

servicemembers who have lost their 

lives protecting and serving our country. It has been more than a year since 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with SENATE