Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in strong, passionate support of the Blunt amendment. It is a very important amendment which we will be voting on as an entire Senate at 11 a.m. this morning.

The Blunt amendment is an absolutely necessary measure to fix what is a very egregious overstepping of the bounds of government in terms of the newly articulated ObamaCare mandate on religion. As we all know through the debate and discussion of the last several weeks, the Obama administration has made it clear that everyone, including persons of faith, including religious institutions, are not only going to be forced to buy a product in the marketplace--and many of us think that itself is unprecedented and unconstitutional--but it gets worse because they will be forced to buy a product in the marketplace that violates their conscience, that violates their core beliefs.

Catholics and many other Christians, many people of faith, do not believe in certain activity and treatment that is mandated now to be covered by this mandatory insurance. That is crossing a line we have never before crossed in this country, in terms of government power, government mandates, and government intrusion into the conscience of others and to the free exercise of religion. We absolutely need to fix this.

This is a fundamental conscience issue. This is a freedom of religion issue. That is exactly why it is so important.

Let me also clarify, this is not merely about contraception. Folks on the other side of the debate and most of the media constantly put it merely in those terms. First of all, those measures in and of themselves violate the conscience of many Americans. But, second, it is not just about that, it is about abortion, it is about abortion- inducing drugs such as Plan B, it is about sterilization. Clearly, the government mandating Americans to buy, to pay for, to subsidize these measures violates the conscience of tens and tens of millions of Americans. That is why we must act, hopefully today, starting today, by passing the Blunt amendment.

The arguments made on the other side, when we look at them carefully, do not hold water. First of all, there is President Obama's so-called accommodation, so-called compromise, which is not an accommodation and is not a meaningful compromise at all. What did he say? He said: OK. We are not going to make Americans, persons of faith, religious institutions buy coverage they have moral qualms with. We are merely going to make the insurance provider provide that coverage whether the customer wants it or not. Well, that is a completely superficial and completely meaningless word game. The insurer is providing this how? What payment is supporting it? The only payment the insurer is getting is from a customer who objects to the coverage. So who is supporting it? Who is paying for it? Clearly this is a word game. If it weren't clear enough for the typical person or institution involved, what about institutions--and there are many of them--which are self-insured? What about the University of Notre Dame, Catholic University, or Catholic institutions? They don't go to an insurance company to buy insurance; they are self-insured. That word game doesn't even work on the surface there. Those cases number in the hundreds or thousands around the country, and that is a clear example of how that so-called compromise or accommodation is merely a sleight of hand and a word game.

Another argument which the other side has made in this debate is that somehow correcting this situation through the Blunt amendment or through similar measures will shut down access to these services. That is patently not true. These services, these medicines, and other treatments are widely available in every community across the country at little cost or no cost for folks who cannot afford it, and that is not going to change. It is absolutely not necessary to tear away religious liberty and violate conscience rights of millions of Americans with that argument in mind. It isn't true.

That is why respected religious leaders, such as Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has argued strenuously and passionately against this mandate. Cardinal- designate Dolan said:

Never before has the Federal Government forced individuals

and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a

product that violates their conscience. This shouldn't happen

in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the

Bill of Rights.

And so that is what it comes down to, free exercise of religion and fundamental conscience protection. The first amendment to the Constitution, the first item in the Bill of Rights, it doesn't get much headier or more significant than that, and that is what this is all about. Again, it is all about, yes, contraception, but abortion, abortion-inducing pills like Plan B, and sterilization.

Mr. President, please assure me that the free exercise of religion is not now a partisan issue. Please assure me that we are going to correct this situation and not allow this egregious overstepping of the bounds of the power of government. We must act to stop this grave injustice, and I hope we start that process in a very serious way today by voting positively and passing the Blunt amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Vitter pertaining to the introduction of S. 2138 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to talk about important and bipartisan legislation that I am introducing today, along with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. It is about the Corps of Engineers, and it is intended, and will once passed, to make a real impact in terms of lessening the delays, the bureaucracy, and the hurdles all of us must go through in terms of seeing important Corps of Engineers projects through to fruition. It is called the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control and Navigation Project Pilot Program.

Let us get right to the heart of the matter. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a broken bureaucracy. In several significant respects, it is simply a badly broken bureaucracy. Let me say upfront that there are many smart, qualified people who work there. They are dedicated. They work long, hard hours in so many cases, and I applaud their efforts. But the overall structure and the overall bureaucracy within which we all must work to get important Corps of Engineers work done is simply broken.

It takes, on average, about 6 years--6 years--for the Corps not to do a project but to perform a preliminary study that might lead to an important flood control or navigation project. Then, when we actually talk about the engineering work, the construction work, it takes at least 20 years, on average, to accomplish any meaningful project. That is simply too long.

There are many reasons for this, and let me say at the outset that not all those are the Corps of Engineers' fault. We in Congress, the public, the country put so many demands and burdens on them that they are simply swamped. They have a backlog that, to some extent, is unavoidable, and that backlog for active projects--not projects being studied or considered but the backlog for active approved projects--is currently $59.6 billion. But even considering that--even considering that avalanche of demands and that backlog--the Corps of Engineers' bureaucracy is broken, and it adds to those problems and magnifies them enormously by extending the time and the cost of any given project.

Of course, when projects get extended in time and are delayed, when costs grow over time. Then the initial problem--the backlog, that initial avalanche of demands--explodes and is multiplied tenfold. This is the situation Senator Nelson and I are trying to address in a focused, proactive, positive way.

Our bill would do one thing to address this. It would establish a pilot program whereby the Corps of Engineers selects certain significant flood control and/or navigation projects and moves project management authority, responsibility for those projects, from the Corps of Engineers down to the State and/or local sponsors. What do I mean by that? Every project we are talking about, every Corps project, whether it is a flood control project or a navigation project, the Corps of Engineers doesn't do it alone. They have partners. On the governmental side, they specifically have State and/or local partners who almost always pay a significant cost share of the project--usually about 35 percent. So those entities are already involved in a very meaningful way in these projects.

Our pilot program would tell the Corps to take certain select projects which have been delayed, which are sitting on the shelf, with costs and timelines growing, and move the project manager responsibility out of the Corps of Engineers down to the State and local sponsors. The States and localities are the folks on the ground who have even more of a vested interest and a need to actually get this work done. They have the desire to cut through delays and the bureaucracy to get it done in a more aggressive way. So I am absolutely convinced, if we can move this responsibility in a careful, thoughtful way down to the State and local sponsors, in virtually all cases that will cut delays, that will cut timeframes, and in doing so it will significantly cut costs.

Again, this is not a radical idea. For one thing, these State and local entities I am talking about are already intimately involved in these projects. They already have significant capacity to be proactively involved in these projects and they already have a stake in the game--in most cases paying 35 percent of the project cost.

Secondly, the actual design, engineering and construction work is not done by any of these entities anyway. In almost all cases, the huge majority, or 100 percent, of that work--design, engineering, construction--is done by private business hired by the Corps, hired by the State and locals to get this done. That will remain the same. So the professionals doing the design, engineering, and construction work will remain the same. That is not changing at all.

Third, the reason this idea is not a radical concept but is actually a proven model is that what I am describing is more or less exactly what we do for Federal highway projects. It just so happens we are debating a highway bill on the Senate floor, and that is a useful model to look to in this context. When we do highway projects, we have a Federal Highway Administration and we have significant Federal funds that go to these highway projects, but the Federal agency--in that case the Federal Highway Administration--is not the lead project manager, is not intimately involved day to day, week to week, and year to year in moving those projects along. Quite to the contrary, they are shipped and the dollars are shipped to the States and locals. In the huge majority of cases, the States and/or locals are the lead project manager entity taking control and leading the way.

So that is a proven model. That model works better compared to the way the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers works; that is, broad brush, exactly the model we are adopting. It will save time, and in doing so it will save significant money.

To ensure the Corps does not feel threatened by this, built into the bill, Senator Nelson and I have identified an offset. So even though these projects that will be included in the pilot program have money that has been allocated for them, we have an offset so that amount of money can be spent on those projects without diminishing what will remain as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' budget.

In fact, the Corps itself faces a win-win with this situation. They will get rid of some of their responsibility and some of their work, but there will not be any Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers money that will leave them alone with that responsibility and with that work. Quite honestly, the Corps welcomes this, particularly in light of their backlog and particularly in light of the avalanche of demands that are placed on them.

For all these reasons, I hope all our colleagues in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, will look carefully at this legislation and join Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and myself. This is something that needs to be done, because as I said at the beginning, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, unfortunately, is a badly broken bureaucracy in many respects. It needs to be fixed. We need to respond to these flood control and navigation needs on a real-time basis, not with 20, 30 years' delay. We can't continue to compete in a global economy with this sort of delay for vital navigation or vital flood control projects. We need to cut through the bureaucracy and do a lot more with less. This legislation will help us get there.

I invite, and Senator Bill Nelson invites, all of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to look at this legislation. We invite all of our colleagues to join us in this very important reform of the Corps of Engineers.

In closing, let me also say that independent of this legislation, I am also pursuing a GAO audit of the Corps. I have already requested that in writing and have received assurances that audit will happen. I think that will be an additional and very helpful and necessary tool for us to see how the Corps does or doesn't effectively do its business and to make other needed reforms in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' bureaucracy.

I look forward to pursuing that audit, getting the results of that, and seeing

where that leads in terms of other necessary Corps reforms in the near future.

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to talk about important and bipartisan legislation that I am introducing today, along with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. It is about the Corps of Engineers, and it is intended, and will once passed, to make a real impact in terms of lessening the delays, the bureaucracy, and the hurdles all of us must go through in terms of seeing important Corps of Engineers projects through to fruition. It is called the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control and Navigation Project Pilot Program.

Let us get right to the heart of the matter. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a broken bureaucracy. In several significant respects, it is simply a badly broken bureaucracy. Let me say upfront that there are many smart, qualified people who work there. They are dedicated. They work long, hard hours in so many cases, and I applaud their efforts. But the overall structure and the overall bureaucracy within which we all must work to get important Corps of Engineers work done is simply broken.

It takes, on average, about 6 years--6 years--for the Corps not to do a project but to perform a preliminary study that might lead to an important flood control or navigation project. Then, when we actually talk about the engineering work, the construction work, it takes at least 20 years, on average, to accomplish any meaningful project. That is simply too long.

There are many reasons for this, and let me say at the outset that not all those are the Corps of Engineers' fault. We in Congress, the public, the country put so many demands and burdens on them that they are simply swamped. They have a backlog that, to some extent, is unavoidable, and that backlog for active projects--not projects being studied or considered but the backlog for active approved projects--is currently $59.6 billion. But even considering that--even considering that avalanche of demands and that backlog--the Corps of Engineers' bureaucracy is broken, and it adds to those problems and magnifies them enormously by extending the time and the cost of any given project.

Of course, when projects get extended in time and are delayed, when costs grow over time. Then the initial problem--the backlog, that initial avalanche of demands--explodes and is multiplied tenfold. This is the situation Senator Nelson and I are trying to address in a focused, proactive, positive way.

Our bill would do one thing to address this. It would establish a pilot program whereby the Corps of Engineers selects certain significant flood control and/or navigation projects and moves project management authority, responsibility for those projects, from the Corps of Engineers down to the State and/or local sponsors. What do I mean by that? Every project we are talking about, every Corps project, whether it is a flood control project or a navigation project, the Corps of Engineers doesn't do it alone. They have partners. On the governmental side, they specifically have State and/or local partners who almost always pay a significant cost share of the project--usually about 35 percent. So those entities are already involved in a very meaningful way in these projects.

Our pilot program would tell the Corps to take certain select projects which have been delayed, which are sitting on the shelf, with costs and timelines growing, and move the project manager responsibility out of the Corps of Engineers down to the State and local sponsors. The States and localities are the folks on the ground who have even more of a vested interest and a need to actually get this work done. They have the desire to cut through delays and the bureaucracy to get it done in a more aggressive way. So I am absolutely convinced, if we can move this responsibility in a careful, thoughtful way down to the State and local sponsors, in virtually all cases that will cut delays, that will cut timeframes, and in doing so it will significantly cut costs.

Again, this is not a radical idea. For one thing, these State and local entities I am talking about are already intimately involved in these projects. They already have significant capacity to be proactively involved in these projects and they already have a stake in the game--in most cases paying 35 percent of the project cost.

Secondly, the actual design, engineering and construction work is not done by any of these entities anyway. In almost all cases, the huge majority, or 100 percent, of that work--design, engineering, construction--is done by private business hired by the Corps, hired by the State and locals to get this done. That will remain the same. So the professionals doing the design, engineering, and construction work will remain the same. That is not changing at all.

Third, the reason this idea is not a radical concept but is actually a proven model is that what I am describing is more or less exactly what we do for Federal highway projects. It just so happens we are debating a highway bill on the Senate floor, and that is a useful model to look to in this context. When we do highway projects, we have a Federal Highway Administration and we have significant Federal funds that go to these highway projects, but the Federal agency--in that case the Federal Highway Administration--is not the lead project manager, is not intimately involved day to day, week to week, and year to year in moving those projects along. Quite to the contrary, they are shipped and the dollars are shipped to the States and locals. In the huge majority of cases, the States and/or locals are the lead project manager entity taking control and leading the way.

So that is a proven model. That model works better compared to the way the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers works; that is, broad brush, exactly the model we are adopting. It will save time, and in doing so it will save significant money.

To ensure the Corps does not feel threatened by this, built into the bill, Senator Nelson and I have identified an offset. So even though these projects that will be included in the pilot program have money that has been allocated for them, we have an offset so that amount of money can be spent on those projects without diminishing what will remain as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' budget.

In fact, the Corps itself faces a win-win with this situation. They will get rid of some of their responsibility and some of their work, but there will not be any Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers money that will leave them alone with that responsibility and with that work. Quite honestly, the Corps welcomes this, particularly in light of their backlog and particularly in light of the avalanche of demands that are placed on them.

For all these reasons, I hope all our colleagues in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, will look carefully at this legislation and join Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and myself. This is something that needs to be done, because as I said at the beginning, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, unfortunately, is a badly broken bureaucracy in many respects. It needs to be fixed. We need to respond to these flood control and navigation needs on a real-time basis, not with 20, 30 years' delay. We can't continue to compete in a global economy with this sort of delay for vital navigation or vital flood control projects. We need to cut through the bureaucracy and do a lot more with less. This legislation will help us get there.

I invite, and Senator Bill Nelson invites, all of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to look at this legislation. We invite all of our colleagues to join us in this very important reform of the Corps of Engineers.

In closing, let me also say that independent of this legislation, I am also pursuing a GAO audit of the Corps. I have already requested that in writing and have received assurances that audit will happen. I think that will be an additional and very helpful and necessary tool for us to see how the Corps does or doesn't effectively do its business and to make other needed reforms in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' bureaucracy.

I look forward to pursuing that audit, getting the results of that, and seeing

where that leads in terms of other necessary Corps reforms in the near future.

Mr. President, today I recognize Ms. Erica Marie d'Aquin, a bright and talented young Louisianian.

Each year since 1743, the carnival celebration known as Mardi Gras, French for Fat Tuesday, has been celebrated by the people of New Orleans. The season officially begins on January 6, the Twelfth Night of Christmas and the Feast of the Epiphany. Also recognized in many countries around the world with large Roman Catholic populations, Mardi Gras is the final blow out party prior to the ritual fasting of the Lenten Season, which begins on Ash Wednesday.

Over the many decades that New Orleanians have celebrated Mardi Gras, ``krewes'', or private Mardi Gras social organizations, have also contributed to the merriment and glee surrounding the festive season. In Greek mythology, Endymion was known for his everlasting youth and beauty. In 1966, the Krewe of Endymion was established and has annually paraded through the streets of New Orleans. Today, Endymion is known for being the largest parade in New Orleans, both for the number of members--2300--and also for the number of floats. This krewe has meant a lot to me since I had one of my first jobs as a high school student painting Endymion's floats--white primer only, as I wasn't trusted with colors.

During this, the Krewe of Endymion's 46th year, Ms. Erica Marie d'Aquin will reign as queen. Ms. d'Aquin is a senior at Archbishop Chapelle High School and is on the distinguished honor roll. She is a member of the National Art Honor Society, is a member of the pro-life club, has a fond love for art, and is very active in the Chapelle Animal Rescue Effort to promote the awareness of issues affecting animals. She is the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Daryl d'Aquin and the granddaughter Mr. and Mrs. Edmond J. Muniz, the founder and captain of the Krewe of Endymion.

It is exciting for such an accomplished young person to have this honor and will be something she will cherish for a lifetime. She joins a long line of family members who have also had the honor of serving as queen of Endymion: her mother Mary in 1984, her aunt Michelle in 1986, and her aunt Margie in 1991.

As we celebrate the 2012 Mardi Gras season, it is my pleasure to honor Ms. Erica d'Aquin as the 46th queen of the Krewe of Endymion.

Mr. President, it is my true honor and distinct pleasure--joy, really--to help host Reverend Smith today. As the Acting President pro tempore said, Reverend Smith is the senior pastor of the Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Pioneer, LA. He is from Rayville, LA. All of this is in northeast Louisiana, the Monroe area.

Reverend Smith is very distinguished and has brought real hope to so many people in so many communities in that area--first of all, as a spiritual leader, the leader of his congregation and so many others; secondly, as a true leader in fighting truancy, fighting dropout rates very effectively, and also developing good jobs through many school systems. But the third point I really want to make is that I am most joyful to help host him today because he is a true and a good and a tremendously supportive friend. I know that from personal experience, from personal counsel and encouragement, and so do so many other Louisianans know that, and we cherish the reverend in that very personal way. So I am truly honored and delighted to be able to introduce the Senate to Reverend Smith.

Mr. President today, I would like to recognize and honor the valuable contributions of Catholic schools in educating our young people throughout our great Nation. This year from January 29 to February 5, we will celebrate Catholic Schools Week to recognize the exceptional work of Catholic education programs across the country.

Our Nation's Catholic schools have received international praise for academic excellence and have provided students with lessons that extend far beyond the classroom. These schools have continued to impart comprehensive curriculums that emphasize moral, intellectual, and physical development in young people.

In Louisiana, our Catholic schools maintain high academic standards, foster a healthy learning environment for students, and encourage family involvement in the ongoing education of children.

Today, more than two million students attend Catholic schools in the United States, and Catholic schools nationally graduate 99 percent of students with more than 97 percent pursuing college degrees.

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops stated, ``Education is one of the most important ways by which the Church fulfills its commitment to the dignity of the person and building of community. Community is central to education ministry, both as a necessary condition and an ardently desired goal. The educational efforts of the Church, therefore, must be directed to forming persons-in-community; for the education of the individual Christian is important not only to his solitary destiny, but also the destinies of the many communities in which he lives.''

This statement not only stresses the importance of education as part of the mission of the Catholic Church, but also the importance of community and schools in shaping our young people as they go out in to the world to become valuable members of society and their community.

This week, we recognize the students, their families, teachers, administrators, all of our parish leaders, and our communities for their efforts to support our Catholic schools and continued achievement towards the education of our young people.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I too rise in strong support of the balanced budget amendment--the strong, meaningful, balanced budget amendment presented on this side of the aisle because it is an important, necessary effort to rein in the biggest economic problem and threat we have facing us.

I want to dovetail and expand on some of Senator Paul's comments, with which I certainly agree.

First of all, I hope it is perfectly clear that our debt--our growing, unsustainable level of debt--is a clear and present danger and an immediate danger to our Republic, to our democracy, to our economy, and to our future.

Overspending has been a problem for quite a while in Washington. It has been a problem under Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses. But forever it was a problem because we were passing on these big debt figures, this big burden to our kids and grandkids, and we were kicking the can down the road. It was a problem for the future which we should correct now but largely a problem for the future.

As Senator Paul said, that is not true anymore. It is an immediate threat right now. It is not a question of just our kids and grandkids; it is a question of next month, next year, whether we avoid a crisis, as is brewing in Europe, which could be the biggest hit to our economy since the Great Depression, bigger than what we went through in 2008. So this issue is an immediate threat, and it is not some esoteric issue about balance sheets. Again, as Senator Paul said, it is an immediate threat to the health of our economy, to the prospect and ability of Americans, including young Americans coming out of college, to get good jobs, to settle into good careers.

The second thing, which I hope is obvious, is that to get ahold of this problem, to deal with this threat, Congress needs enforced discipline. We need a fiscal straitjacket because we have proven, unfortunately, over and over, under Democratic and Republican majorities, under Democratic and Republican Presidents, that we are not going to do it on our own. We need the enforced discipline--the fiscal straitjacket, if you will--of a balanced budget amendment.

Why do I say this? Well, even knowing the threat we face right now, what does Congress do? Congress passes a debt plan. We pass cuts. While the so-called cuts of $2.1 trillion sounds like a lot of money--it is in some sense--it is largely cuts to the growth of government spending. Even under this plan that Congress recently enacted, we are still racking up new debt. We are still adding on $7 trillion to our already unsustainable level of debt in the next decade, increasing it 50 percent, from $15 trillion to $22 trillion. That is the best we can do without enforced discipline even in the crisis atmosphere

we have now, even with the understanding we have now. I hope that proves we need this enforced discipline. The balanced budget amendment Republicans have put forward gives us that discipline we need.

First of all, I wish to compliment so many who have worked with me on it--Senator Hatch, Senator Lee, many others. I was in the working group, and I was in several meetings to get the details right because the devil is in the details. We don't need a fig leaf. We don't need a talking point. We need a balanced budget constitutional amendment that will work.

The details are right in this proposal, and it will work. Why do I say this? Well, within 5 years of ratification, under the amendment, Congress must pass a budget, the President must submit a proposal that is balanced, but not only that, the size of the Federal Government is limited to 18 percent of GDP. That is the long-term historical average of revenues in modern history. That is where we need to be. That is not my decision; that is not the decision of a single Member of Congress; that is the average of where revenues have been in the modern period.

It requires a strong supermajority to ensure that we don't continue the practice of exceeding spending caps with gimmicks and emergency spending for things that are not truly emergencies. For instance, a two-thirds vote of both Houses is required for a specific deficit for a fiscal year. A majority vote is required for a specific deficit when we have a declared war, and it needs to be a declared war in that instance. A three-fifths vote is required for a deficit during a military conflict and--this is important--with the requirement specifically that that is ``necessary by the identified conflict.'' In other words, the overage from a balanced budget is only for that conflict, not just a general exemption. A two-thirds vote of each House is required to increase taxes, and that is important so that this is not just a mechanism for ever-increasing tax rates that will quickly stagnate the economy. A three-fifths vote of each House is required to increase the debt limit, which is also important.

The details are important. I am confident we have gotten the details right in this proposal.

We also have a Udall proposal, a Democratic balanced budget constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, I think that gets the details very wrong. I am pleased that Senator Udall and Democratic colleagues on the other side are committed to the notion of a balanced budget constitutional amendment. That is important, and that is progress. But the devil is in the details, and I am afraid they got some of those details very, very wrong. For instance, there is a huge loophole exemption for whenever the country is in a military conflict--not just a formally declared war but any military conflict. Unfortunately, we are going to be in that situation for a lifetime under the present war against terror, so that is a huge, gaping loophole. Under that loophole, the amount beyond a balanced budget which is allowed isn't specific to that conflict, it is just a general exemption. So it is a big loophole.

There are other loopholes too. Social Security is completely exempt from this structure. I think that is a big mistake because that is part of our budget situation and because we need this very enforced discipline to fix and to save Social Security. That is one of the top items I want to fix and save. That is one of the first places we need this enforced discipline to fix and save Social Security.

I urge all of my colleagues to come together behind this important and necessary enforcement tool. The American people recognize the problem. They recognize this--a strong, meaningful balanced budget amendment--as an important part of the solution. They want us to act in a positive way, and I urge that support for this balanced budget amendment and for that solution.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there has been a lot of wild rhetoric, quite frankly, hyperbole, exaggeration. I wanted to try to bring this discussion and this debate back to reality. To do that, I wanted to remind folks that conservatives objecting to this nomination have, from the very beginning, laid out three very narrow, specific, concrete reforms we are seeking. So this notion that we are against consumer protection, we are trying to gut CFPB, is silly. Let's get back to reality. Let's get back to what we have said from the very beginning: We want these three important reforms.

First of all, we think it is very important for the single Director, a new czar quite frankly, a credit czar, to be replaced with a board to oversee this Bureau. That is how other comparable agencies operate. The best example--the best comparison--is the SEC. I think that is a critical check on the Bureau's authority to have a board that can discuss and come up with a consensus, not a single agency.

Secondly, related to that, there should be safety and soundness checks for the prudential financial regulators who oversee the safety and soundness of financial institutions. One of the core reasons we had the 2008 financial crisis is we had political agendas run amok with regard to financial institutions with no safety and soundness checks.

We are putting that same problem on steroids in this new all-powerful bureaucracy. Again, point No. 1, very specific, very concrete, very commonsense reform that we have proposed from the beginning is a safety and soundness check.

Third, and perhaps most important, the Bureau should be subject to the congressional appropriations process so there is some oversight and accountability from the American people and their representatives. That is the norm. That sort of check and balance, that oversight and accountability, is absolutely the norm. It is way outside the norm to have no oversight and accountability because, as it stands now, this new superbureaucracy has an unlimited check that it gets from the Federal Reserve--never has to get an appropriation, never has to answer a single question from the people or their representatives.

Again, the CFPB, as it sounds now, draws its budget directly from the revenue of the Federal Reserve. By the way, this revenue would otherwise be deposited into the Treasury paying down the debt. The CFPB is not just about mega institutions, mega banks--more hyperbole that has been thrown on the floor--but anyone, any business, for instance, that offers four or more payment installments and an installment plan.

Sure, that includes Citibank. It also includes your dentist, your vet, your local electronics store. CFPB right now is so unlimited in their authority that they are able to limit or prohibit the terms of any such product or service, has power over marketing of any such product or service in its jurisdiction with, again, the Federal Reserve as its basically unlimited piggy bank.

I think these concerns we have are pretty darn fundamental and have a lot of common sense in them. Again, we have three very specific, concrete reforms we want advanced. We are not trying to gut the CFPB. Those reforms would not gut it--not against consumer protection. Those reforms would still have a sound, strong consumer protection agency in place.

I think the American people deserve a more honest debate than, quite frankly, they are getting in a lot of this. This notion that if we are against ObamaCare, we are against all improvement of the health care system is silly. I think Americans get that as their health insurance premiums go up significantly now, by every accounting, by every independent source, well beyond what they would have gone up otherwise.

Being against that is not being against health care reform. We heard even earlier, if we are against the stimulus plan, we are against economic recovery. That is silly. I think Americans know that now that we are still stuck at very high unemployment. How is that recovery working out for everyone?

I was against the stimulus because I was for economic recovery, and it is the same thing here. We need to advance the interests of the American people, certainly including consumers. But we do not need an all-powerful, new czar in Washington who can hurt everyone, including consumers.

So we continue to advance three very specific, concrete, commonsense reforms. That is all we want. That does not gut CFPB. That is not against consumer protection. It is against unbridled, unprecedented authority. The American people, agency after agency, issue after issue, have seen the effects of that sort of unbridled, virtually unlimited Federal Government authority in the last 2 years. They do not like it.

Mr. President, last week I came to the floor and urged all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together in a commonsense, bipartisan way and extend for a significant period of time the very important National Flood Insurance Program. That program, which is essential to the country, involves a lot of properties essential to real estate closings, to allow that important part of our economy to happen as we struggle to get out of this recession. That program would otherwise expire 1 week from this Friday.

I also wrote Senator Reid that same day, as I came to the floor, urging him to support this legislation, extending this vital program, to be passed quickly, hopefully unanimously, through the Senate.

The good news is that I have reached out to many folks--Democrats and Republicans--since then, and we have continued to build consensus to do that, to make sure there is no threat of the National Flood Insurance Program lapsing yet again, as it did, unfortunately, four times in 2010--no good reason--for a total of 53 days. Every time that happens or is even threatened to happen, within a few days there is great chaos and uncertainty in the real estate market. Good closings are put off. Our economy slows down for no good reason, as we need every closing in sight to do exactly the opposite and to improve the economy. Again, the good news is that we have built consensus, and I think we have reached consensus to avoid that sort of lapse. So I return to the floor today to get that formally done.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1958, my bill, to extend the National Flood Insurance Program well into next year, to May 31, which I introduced earlier today.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this measure. I will have a few closing comments after we formally pass it, but I urge its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in closing, I thank everyone, on both sides of the aisle, who worked in a very commonsense way to get this done. Again, sort of the worst case scenario is what we all experienced in 2010. Four different times in 2010 the program actually lapsed, a total of 53 days. More times than that it came within a few days of lapsing and created great uncertainty in the real estate market.

We do not need any of that. We have been trying to struggle out of a recession and a very bad economy which has been led by a real estate downturn. We need every good closing we can get. Giving the market this certainty over a week before it would otherwise expire is very good as we try to create that certainty and build a better economic climate.

I am happy we came together in a commonsense bipartisan way to extend the National Flood Insurance Program, as is, to May 31. Let me also say in closing I strongly support a full 6-year reauthorization of the program. I have worked on that bill with many others in the relevant Senate committee, the Senate Banking Committee. We have reported a good bill out of committee. I want to get that to the Senate floor and merge it and compromise it in some reasonable way with the House reauthorization.

We need a full-blown 6-year reauthorization of the program with significant reforms. That was obviously not going to happen between now and a week from Friday. It is obviously not going to happen a month or two into the new year. So we needed to create the certainty this extension will create as we continue to work on that full reauthorization.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes on a different topic than the Defense authorization bill.

Madam President, I come to the Senate floor to discuss another very important issue for our economy, which is the National Flood Insurance Program.

The National Flood Insurance Program is a vital Federal program that helps provide flood insurance for properties all across the country. It is absolutely vital to citizens and to our economy, to the real estate market, to closings which cannot happen without this type of insurance in many instances. It is important all across the country. It is nowhere more important than in Louisiana, which, unfortunately, has pretty severe flooding risks.

In the last few years, we have extended this necessary and important program but sometimes with real fits and starts and even lapses of the program. As you know, Madam President, in 2010, it got worse than ever. Congress allowed the National Flood Insurance Program to lapse four times--for a total of 53 days--for no good reason. It was not a money issue; it was not a cost issue; it was not a deficit issue because continuation of the program along the current structure does not raise deficit and debt. But we had these deadlines that kept approaching, and we let, in many instances--in four instances--the deadline actually come and the program to lapse--four times in 2010, for a total of 53 days.

That had enormous negative consequences. Real estate closings that were scheduled to happen had to be canceled. Here we are in the middle of a horrendous recession--clearly the worst since World War II--led by problems in the real estate market, and we had good, solid real estate closings which had to be put off and canceled for no good reason. Really crazy.

We learned a little bit from that experience, and this year, in 2011, we have done better. We have continued the program without lapse. But I am afraid we are getting back into this habit of extremely short-term extensions, which brings with it the threat of lapses. We extended the program a few weeks ago, but we only extended it for the duration of the current CR, until this December 16. So, again, the program is set to completely expire nationwide this December 16.

The ultimate solution is a long-term, full reauthorization of the flood insurance program. I support that full 6-year bill, and we have voted out of the Senate Banking Committee a full, long-term, 6-year reauthorization bill. However, that is not going to pass into law between now and December 16, and it is pretty clear it is not going to pass into law for several months.

That is why I am urging all of us to come together in a bipartisan fashion in the meantime to pass a clean extension of the program for the remainder of this fiscal year, through September 30, 2012, or for some significantly long time within that year. I think that is needed right now to assure the real estate market there will not be disruptions, to take that threat and that uncertainty out of the market and out of the line of closings, that we want to encourage, we want to build, as we try to build up the real estate market and the economy in general.

Because I believe this is clearly the right path, I have done two things. First, I have filed that extension, that clean extension--a bill under my name--through September 30, 2012. This is very similar to the extension we passed in late 2010 to get us through that fiscal year to September 30, 2011. That was my bill. We passed it unanimously here in the Senate, again, to avoid these deadlines and disruptions, which hamper economic recovery. So I filed that bill. That would be a clean extension of the program through September 30, 2012.

The second thing I did today is write Senator Reid, the majority leader, and ask him to focus on this important program and the need for this extension as soon as possible, and to hotline it through the Senate, to ask for unanimous consent from both sides, all Members, as we did about a year ago, pass this so we extend this important, vital program through September 30, 2012, or some similar, significant timeframe.

Again, I wrote Senator Reid today to highlight this need. I will be following up with him. I have already followed up and talked to many other interested Members, starting with those leaders on the Banking Committee under whose jurisdiction this falls.

This should be a no-brainer. This should be a completely nonpartisan or bipartisan exercise. This is not some big ideological dispute. This is simply extending, continuing a vital, necessary program without in any way increasing deficit and debt, in a way that we take out uncertainty, take out the specter of this necessary program lapsing yet again, as it did four times in 2010, for a total of 53 days.

We cannot let this lapse. And, quite frankly, we should not even go near the deadline before we extend it because that in and of itself-- even if we do not technically allow it to lapse--creates uncertainty and chaos in the real estate market and disrupts real estate closings.

We need every good real estate transaction we can get. We need every bit of additional economic activity we can get in this horrible economy, this recession that was led by a bad real estate market. We need to lead recovery with a recovering real estate market. So let's do this in a simple, straightforward, commonsense, bipartisan way in that effort. We did it around my bill in that nearly full-year extension about a year ago. Let's do it again.

In closing, I want to underscore I am fully committed to the full, detailed 6-year reauthorization bill. It has come out of the Senate Banking Committee. It needs to pass through the Senate. We need to resolve differences with the House. We need to pass that into law. But that is not going to happen between now and December 16, and it is not going to happen for several months. So, in the meantime, let's remove the threat of disruption, of lapses in the program, of uncertainty. All of that is extremely harmful in this very fragile economy.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the majority leader, and I also rise to object to the motion for completely different reasons than my colleague from Kansas. I rise to object, and several join me in this view, because I believe these additional appropriations bills, which we are trying to bring to the floor, simply spend too much money.

Our greatest challenge as a nation right now is our economy. A big part of that challenge is the fact that we have completely unsustainable Federal spending and deficit and debt. Yet in the midst of all that, these appropriations bills spend more money than we are spending already, not less.

Every American with any common sense knows when they are in a deep hole, the first step one takes is to stop digging. We as a country are in a deep fiscal hole, but these bills have us continuing to dig further. The three bills the majority leader wants to bring to the floor together spend $6 billion more than we are spending now.

We are spending more, not less, even though we are $15 trillion in debt. That is simply continuing to dig when we are in a deep fiscal hole.

Also, when you look at some of the details of this spending, it makes it even more offensive to millions upon millions of Americans--allowing funds for overseas groups that perform abortion, allowing taxpayer- funded abortion in the District of Columbia, allowing elective abortions in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, allowing funding of abortion by the Peace Corps, and $40 million for the U.N. Population Fund, which is deeply involved in China's proabortion population control program.

I think it is a deadly combination in more ways than one. We are continuing to dig when we are already in a deep hole, and then, when you look at the details of the spending, so many parts of that in and of themselves are deeply offensive to tens of millions of Americans. Based on that and joined by many conservative colleagues of the Senate, I also object.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, several weeks ago, on September 28 of this year, I joined three of my Senate colleagues--Senators Shelby, Cornyn, and Hutchison--in requesting from the Obama administration and its Interior Department a detailed plan about what their new 5-year energy lease plan was going to be, as well as their plans for moving forward with scheduled leasing. We finally got some of the answers to that today as the administration released its new 5-year oil and gas lease plan. I guess that is the good news--we finally got our questions answered. There is a lot more bad news, unfortunately, which is what those answers are.

It is deeply disappointing that we are not moving forward in a far more aggressive and positive way in developing our own domestic energy resources. As I said, today Secretary Salazar introduced President Obama's plan for the next 5 years of energy production, specifically on the Outer Continental Shelf. For those Members in the Senate and for others who are not as familiar with energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf, this is basically the 5-year strategy for us as a nation in terms of oil and gas production domestically--what we are going to do in these next 5 years to produce more of our own energy.

The opportunity was enormous. As you remember, a few years ago, in 2008, there was a bipartisan agreement to lift the decades-long ban on new offshore drilling and to open new areas off the Atlantic coast, off the Pacific Coast, and off the Arctic coast. Those

opportunities were enormous. This map illustrates what the opportunities were given that 2008 lifting of the moratorium.

Previously, this had been off limits, this had been off limits--much of this had been off limits. But in 2008, on a bipartisan basis, Congress--even a Democratic Congress--heard the cry of the American people and said we need to develop more domestic energy resources, so we opened all of these possibilities.

Unfortunately, President Obama chose not to take advantage of those opportunities because this map represents his new 5-year plan announced today--the entire Atlantic coast, off limits; the entire Pacific Coast, off limits; much of the Alaska coast, off limits; the western gulf of Mexico, where there has traditionally been significant activity, of course, is still there, but even the eastern gulf has been withdrawn under related Federal law until 2022. That is deeply disappointing.

Put another way, in the previous 5-year lease plan, there were about 30 sale areas that were outlined to have lease sales, 30 specific areas around our Outer Continental Shelf. That was the previous 5-year plan. That plan existed when President Obama took office. One of the first things he did in the energy area, with his Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar was to throw that plan out the window almost immediately. This was well before the BP disaster. It was not in reaction to that disaster or anything else specific; they just threw that 5-year lease plan out the window. In this new 5-year lease plan--their first in the Obama administration, which they are announcing today--instead of 30 different areas, there are about 15. So they moved backward, cutting in half the number of lease sales that were planned in the 5-year plan.

Put another way, instead of having about six lease sales per year, there are only going to be three. As any fourth grader can tell you, doing that simple math, that is moving backward by a lot. That is going from about 30 lease sales to half that number--15. That is going from about six a year to half that number--three.

Our energy needs are not moving backward. Our desire and need for increased energy independence is not moving backward. Yet our effort and our ability to access our own domestic oil and gas on our own Outer Continental Shelf under this Obama plan is doing exactly that--it is moving backward.

Let me put it a different way. The Outer Continental Shelf of the United States is about 1.76 billion acres, almost 2 billion acres. But of all that vast expanse, only 38 million acres are actually leased. That is 2.16 percent of our entire Outer Continental Shelf. This new 5- year plan increases that a tiny amount at the margin. It keeps it under 3 percent. With a vast, energy-rich Outer Continental Shelf, we are still 3 percent or under of what we could access under this new plan.

Again, we are moving backward from the previous 5-year plan that President Obama threw out quickly upon taking office. That is deeply disappointing. If I am disappointed, I know there are some folks who are even more disappointed, including our colleagues in Virginia. Some select production and lease-sale activity off the Virginia coast was planned in the previous 5-year plan. That is out the window. As you can see, nothing can go on off the Atlantic. Also, four geologic basins off southern California and one geologic basin off northern California were in the previous 5-year plan. That is out the window. That is barred. There is nothing that can happen off the Pacific coast. Even in Alaska, the North Aleutian Basin and the Cook Inlet were in the previous 5-year plan. That is zeroed out. That is out the window. That is not in this new 5-year plan.

My basic question on this disappointing announcement is simple: How does excluding all of these areas and how does cutting back the previous 5-year plan to half that amount best meet our national energy needs? It seems to me it is clear it does not. In fact, it eliminates incredible job and revenue opportunities as well as our ability to increase energy independence, to produce more domestic energy, all of which we desperately need to do.

As the National Ocean Industries Association puts it:

A 5-year plan for the Outer Continental Shelf is the most

important and defining action an administration takes in

providing new oil and gas resources for building economic

prosperity in this country.

They are right. It is the single most defining action with regard to Outer Continental Shelf energy production.

So with this action today, what is President Obama saying? What is his Interior Secretary saying? He is saying we are moving backward. He is saying we are going to do about half of what we were going to do in the previous 5-year plan which he canceled immediately upon taking office. That is very disappointing. It is disappointing for our energy picture. It is disappointing in terms of our need to lessen our reliance on foreign sources. It is also sadly disappointing in terms of the job picture because every lease sale that happens is thousands upon thousands of great American jobs to help build the economy and help to get us back out of this horrible recession.

Finally, it is even deeply disappointing with regard to our challenge of lowering the deficit and debt. You know what. With energy production, the more we do, the more revenue we bring into the Federal Treasury to lower deficit and debt. In fact, after the Federal income tax, this is the single biggest category of Federal revenue into the Federal Treasury--royalties on domestic energy production.

So it is domestic energy, it is great American jobs, and it is lowering the deficit and debt with more revenue. President Obama today has said no to all of that. He has taken an enormous step backward. He has said, compared to the previous 5-year plan, that we are only doing half. He said that we are shutting off the Atlantic coast, we are shutting off the Pacific coast, and much of the coast off Alaska.

Today, I have written Secretary Salazar and expressed these concerns. I have asked the Secretary if they will reconsider this step backward because our country cannot afford it. We cannot afford it in energy terms. We cannot afford it in jobs terms. We cannot afford it in revenue terms when we need more revenue to lower deficit and debt. I will be following up aggressively on that letter, trying to understand the rationale behind this step backward and trying to get the Obama administration to reconsider.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I recognize the Close Up Foundation on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

The Close Up Foundation has had a widespread impact on teachers and students around the nation, and I applaud their efforts to educate and inspire young people and provide teachers with valuable resources to take back to their classrooms.

Since 1971, the Close Up Foundation has been committed to promoting responsible and informed participation in our republic through experiential education programs that provide students with the knowledge and skills to be involved in our democratic process.

Close Up's partnerships with government agencies, the media, private businesses, and our capital's historic sites provide interactive classrooms to reinforce the links between our history and our current policy debates, giving students a better understanding of the concepts and institutions of America's constitutional government.

Again, I am proud to honor the Close Up Foundation and congratulate them for their many contributions towards educating America's youth.