Floor Statements

I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I rise respectfully to oppose the amendment the Senator from Colorado has offered, though in some measure I thank him for offering it because this has been an important and good debate.

My own position, stated briefly, is this: As Senator Levin has said, we are a nation at war. As such we were attacked on 9/11. We adopted in this Chamber the authorization for military force. That is about as close to a declaration of war as we have done since the Second World War. The comparison is exact because what happened to us on 9/11 was in some ways even worse than what happened in December of 1941 when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.

A nation at war that seizes those who have declared themselves to be part of enemy forces and have attempted to attack the American people, or America, should be treated as enemy combatants, as prisoners of war, according to the law of war. To me, that is a matter of principle. Regardless of what statistics one can cite about how well prosecutions have gone in article III courts, that is, to me, not ultimately the point. If we are at war, the people who are fighting against us ought to be treated as prisoners of war.

In fact, we are without a policy now, as Senator Ayotte said. The main reason I oppose what Senator Udall is proposing is that he would remove the sections of the current bill that create a policy and send us back to where we are now, where our forces in the field don't know what to do if they capture a member of al-Qaida.

If I had my way, the provisions in this proposal on detainees would not have the waivers the President has. It would simply say, if you are apprehended--if you are a foreign member of al-Qaida, and you are captured planning or executing attacks against Americans or our allies in this war, you are put in military custody and you are tried in a military tribunal. This is not the law of the jungle; this is according to American law. These are the same courts in which American soldiers are tried when charges are brought against them, and, of course, we accept and abide by all of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

But that was not the will of the Armed Services Committee. The Armed Services Committee, in a good, reasonable, bipartisan compromise, has created a system here where the default position--the initial position is to transfer these enemy combatants to military custody. It is a good compromise. It is the kind of compromise that----

--doesn't happen around here enough. I didn't get everything I wanted out of it, but it is a lot better than the status quo. Therefore, I support the language in the bill and oppose the Udall amendment.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, for his kindness.

Mr. President, as the Speaker sometimes says in the House, it is really a high honor and great personal privilege--with the emphasis on ``personal''--to come to the floor of the Senate to give my strong support to the nomination of Judge Christopher Droney of West Hartford, CT, to serve as U.S. Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. I say it is a high honor because I have profound confidence based on Judge Droney's service as a private attorney, a U.S. attorney, and now for quite a while as a member of the district court in Connecticut. I have great confidence that he will make an excellent addition to this very important court, the U.S. court for the Second Circuit.

I say it is a great personal privilege to be able to speak on behalf of his nomination because, as the occupant of the chair, my colleague from Connecticut, knows well, I have known Chris Droney for a long time now. He and his brother John have been very good friends of mine, great supporters, great sources of counsel, great friends. Both are graduates of the College of Holy Cross. The older brother John, who has less of a judicial temperament than the younger brother Chris--fortunately, we are approving Chris here for the court, not John. But John tells me, having been to Holy Cross, it is still

politically acceptable to note that the graduates of Holy Cross consider themselves Crusaders. Both John and Chris Droney have been crusaders for what is right in the best sense of the word. I value their personal friendship. We have gone through a lot together, not just in politics, but I have seen their families grow.

I have gotten to know their families. I know what they are made of. We have gone through the natural lifecycle tragedies of losing parents, et cetera, together.

Chris Droney is a person of real depth and real ability and will make an excellent judge. So I stress the personal part because it adds a dimension that you and I both, Mr. President, have had the opportunity to have, which is, beyond the resume of Chris Droney, which I am going to mention in a moment, there is a person here, and he is a person who exemplifies what we mean when we talk about a judicial temperament, who we know has a great intellect, tremendous legal acumen, who we know is hard-working, and who we know brings common sense to everything he has done.

I mentioned John Droney just because they go together as brothers, and there is nothing that matters more to John--the older and obviously less attractive of the two--than the pride he has in his brother's achievements, though John himself, of course, has been a very successful and distinguished member of the bar in Connecticut. So let me focus on the younger brother, who is the subject of our consideration today.

I mentioned that Judge Droney attended the College of Holy Cross in Massachusetts, from which he graduated magna cum laude in 1976. He went on to attend the University of Connecticut Law School, where he was the notes and comments editor on the Law Review, and earned his J.D.-- doctor of jurisprudence--in 1979.

After graduating from law school, he worked in private practice as a litigation associate handling a range of matters, mostly civil at that point. In 1983, he became a partner at the well-respected law firm of Reid and Riege in Hartford, where he represented clients in a wide range of civil matters, including commercial disputes, personal injury actions, property claims, and intellectual property matters. Judge Droney personally tried cases in the Connecticut Superior Court, the U.S. district court in Connecticut, and argued appeals in the Connecticut Appellate and Supreme Courts and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court for which he is being considered today.

During this period, Judge Droney, like his brother, was involved in public life in Connecticut and served, in his case, on the town council of West Hartford as deputy mayor from 1983 to 1985 and as mayor from 1985 to 1989.

In 1993, President Clinton nominated Chris Droney to be the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, where he served with great distinction and affect until 1997. As U.S. attorney, he initiated new cooperative law enforcement efforts against gangs, health care fraud, and financial fraud, in addition to personally trying some major cases in Connecticut and across New England and successfully arguing cases before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals--again, the court he is being considered for today in a vote that will occur shortly.

Judge Droney was selected by then-Attorney General Janet Reno to serve on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys in which he was one of 17 U.S. attorneys selected to assist the Department of Justice on a range of pressing matters.

In 1997, after 4 years as U.S. attorney, Chris Droney was nominated to the district court in Connecticut by President Clinton and I might say for the second time was confirmed unanimously by this Senate. Since then, as a district court judge, he has presided over numerous Federal, civil, and criminal trials and has consistently demonstrated sound judgment and great legal acumen in his many decisions covering an array of complex and sensitive matters. Judge Droney's career speaks to a profound commitment to the rule of law and the credibility of the legal system.

I know there is a tendency to want to find out, is this judge a liberal, is he a conservative, is he a conservative? I don't think you can put a label on Judge Droney. Some might say he is a moderate. Others might say he is an Independent. I think he is known as somebody who is fair and will take every case as it comes along and decide it on the merits.

So now he has been nominated to serve on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I want to personally express my thanks first to President Obama for submitting his nomination for this very esteemed court and secondly to our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, both of whom have been kind enough to be on the floor and speak on his behalf, Senator Leahy, who is chairman of the committee, and Senator Grassley, the ranking member. I was particularly grateful for Senator Grassley's comments about Judge Droney's capabilities. This is a good man who believes in the law and is tremendously experienced.

Incidentally, he sat as a visiting judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and has actually written, I believe, five opinions for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals already. So this is somebody who will hit the ground running with the support of the Senate this afternoon.

I will repeat what I said at the beginning. It is not only a high honor and one that I don't take lightly but also a great personal privilege to urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Judge Christopher Droney of Connecticut to be a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. 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. President, I rise today, with my colleagues, Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, and Senator Lugar, to support an amendment to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our government by fostering greater integration among the personnel who work on critical national security and homeland security missions.

The national security and homeland security challenges that our Nation faces in the 21st century are far more complex than those of the last century. Threats such as terrorism, proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons,

insurgencies, and failed states are beyond the capability of any single agency of our government--such as the Department of Defense, DOD; the Department of State; or the intelligence community--to counter on its own.

In addition, threats such as terrorism and organized crime know no borders and instead cross the so-called foreign/domestic divide--the bureaucratic, cultural, and legal division between agencies that focus on threats from beyond our borders and those that focus on threats from within.

Finally, a new group of government agencies is now involved in national and homeland security. These agencies bring to bear critical capabilities--such as interdicting terrorist finance, enforcing sanctions, protecting our critical infrastructure, and helping foreign countries threatened by terrorism to build their economies and legal systems--but many of them have relatively little experience of involvement with the traditional national security agencies. Some of these agencies have existed for decades or centuries--such as the Departments of Treasury; Justice; and Health and Human Services, HHS-- while others are new since 9/11, such as the Department of Homeland Security, DHS.

As a result, our government needs to be able to apply all instruments of national power--including military, diplomatic, law enforcement, foreign aid, homeland security, and public health--in a whole-of- government approach to counter these threats. We only need to look at our government's failure to use the full range of civilian and military capabilities to stymie the Iraqi insurgency immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the government's failure to prepare and respond to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the government's failure to share information and coordinate action prior to the attack at Fort Hood, TX, in 2009, for examples of failure of interagency coordination and their costs in terms of lives, money, and the national interest.

The challenge of integrating the agencies of the executive branch into a whole-of-government approach has been recognized by congressionally chartered commissions for more than a decade. Prior to 9/11, the commission led by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, entitled the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, issued reports recommending fundamental reorganization to integrate government capabilities, including for homeland security.

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission, led by former Governor Tom Kean and former Representative Lee Hamilton, found that the U.S. Government needed reform in order to foster a stronger, faster, and more efficient governmentwide effort against terrorism.

And in 2008, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, led by former Senators Bob Graham and Jim Talent, called for improving interagency coordination in our Nation's defenses against bioterrorism and other weapons of mass destruction.

Congress has long recognized that a key way to better integrate our government's capabilities is to provide strong incentives for personnel to do rotational assignments across bureaucratic stovepipes. The personnel who serve in our government are our Nation's best and brightest, and they have and will respond to incentives that we institute in order to improve coordination across our government.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act. That legislation sought to break down stovepipes and foster jointness across the military services by requiring that military officers have served in a position outside of their service as a requirement for promotion to general or admiral.

Twenty-five years later, this requirement has produced a sea change in military officers' mindsets and created a dominant military culture of jointness.

In 2004, Congress enacted the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act at the 9/11 Commission's recommendation and required a similar rotational requirement for intelligence personnel. The Director of National Intelligence has since instituted rotations across the intelligence community as an eligibility requirement for promotion to senior intelligence positions, and this requirement is helping to integrate the 16 agencies and elements of the intelligence community.

Finally, in 2005, Congress enacted the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act to improve our Nation's preparedness for and responses to domestic catastrophes and instituted a rotational program within the Department of Homeland Security in order to integrate that Department.

This proven mechanism of rotations must be applied to integrate the government as a whole on national security and homeland security issues. Indeed, the Hart/Rudman Commission called for rotations to other agencies and interagency professional education to be required in order for personnel to hold certain positions or be promoted to certain levels. And the Graham/Talent Commission called for the government to recruit the next generation of national security experts by establishing a program of joint duty, education, and training in order to create a culture of interagency collaboration, flexibility, and innovation.

The executive branch has also recognized the need to foster greater interagency rotations and experience in order to improve integration across its agencies. In 2007, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13434 concerning national security professional development and to include interagency assignments. However, that Executive order was not implemented aggressively toward the end of the Bush administration and has languished as the Obama administration pursued other priorities.

Clearly, it is time for Congress to act and to institute the personnel incentives and reforms necessary to further integrate our government and enable it to counter the national security and homeland security threats of the 21st century.

In June of this year, I joined with Senator Susan M. Collins and Senator Daniel K. Akaka to introduce the bipartisan Interagency Personnel Rotation Act of 2011, S. 1268. Companion legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis by Representative Geoff Davis and Representative John F. Tierney. The legislation was marked up by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on October 19, 2011. I am pleased that Senator Richard Lugar, ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, has joined as a cosponsor of that bill. Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, Senator Lugar, and I are pleased to offer the Interagency Personnel Rotation Act, with minor modifications from the marked-up version, as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

The purpose of this amendment is to enable executive branch personnel to view national security and homeland security issues from a whole-of- government perspective and be able to capitalize upon communities of interest composed of personnel from multiple agencies who work on the same national security or homeland security issue.

This amendment requires that the executive branch identify ``Interagency Communities of Interest''--which are subject areas spanning multiple agencies and within which the executive branch needs to operate on a more integrated basis. Interagency communities of interest could include counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, counter proliferation, or regional areas such as the Middle East.

This amendment then requires that agencies identify positions that are within each interagency community of interest. Government personnel would then rotate to positions within other agencies but within the particular interagency community of interest related to their expertise.

Government personnel could also rotate to positions at offices that have specific interagency missions such as the national security staff. Completing an interagency rotation would be a prerequisite for selection to certain Senior Executive Service positions within that interagency community of interest. As a result, personnel would have the incentives to serve in a rotational position and to develop the whole-of-government perspective and the network of contacts necessary for integrating across agencies and accomplishing national security and homeland security missions more efficiently and effectively.

Let me offer some examples of how this might work.

An employee of the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, who specializes in development strategy could rotate to a DOD counterinsurgency office to advise DOD in planning on how development issues should be taken into account in military operations, while a DOD counterinsurgency specialist could rotate to USAID to advise on how development priorities should be assessed in a counterinsurgency.

A Treasury employee who does terrorist finance work could benefit from a rotation to Department of Justice to understand operations to take down terrorist cells and how terrorist finance work can help identify and prosecute their members, while a Justice employee would have the chance to learn from the Treasury's financial expertise in understanding how sources of funding can affect cells' formation and plotting.

An HHS employee who specializes in public health could rotate to a DOD counterinsurgency office to advise on improving public health in order to win over the hearts and minds of the population to counter insurgency, while a DHS employee could rotate to HHS in order to learn about HHS's work to prepare the U.S. public health system for a biological terrorist attack.

The cosponsors of this amendment and I recognize the complexity involved in the creation of interagency communities of interest, the institution of rotations across a wide variety of government agencies, and having a rotation as a prerequisite for selection to certain Senior Executive Service positions. As a result, our legislation gives the executive branch substantial flexibility--including to identify interagency communities of interest; to identify which positions in each agency are within a particular interagency community of interest; to identify which positions in an interagency community of interest should be open for rotation and how long the rotations will be; and, finally, which Senior Executive Service positions have interagency rotational service as a prerequisite.

To be clear, this legislation does not mandate that any agency be included in an interagency community of interest or the interagency personnel rotations; instead, this legislation permits the executive branch to include any agency or part of an agency as the executive branch determines that our Nation's national and homeland security missions require.

Finally, I wish to stress that this amendment is designed to be implemented with no cost to the executive branch.

First, this amendment is designed to be implemented without requiring any additional personnel for the executive branch. The amendment envisions that rotations will be conducted so that there is a reasonable equivalence between the number of personnel rotating out of an agency and the number rotating in. That way, no agency will be short staffed as a result of having sent its best and brightest to do rotations; each agency will be receiving the best and brightest from other agencies.

Second, this amendment relies on the office that is currently implementing the executive branch's national security professional development program to implement this framework instituted by this amendment. This office is currently housed at DOD, and the legislation would move the office and its three employees to the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, which have oversight responsibility for this framework. Thus, no new staff would be required to administer the framework set forth in the amendment.

Third, this amendment has a 5-year implementation period which requires the executive branch to create two interagency communities of interest--for emergency management, and stabilization and reconstruction--to restrict the number of personnel doing rotations to 20 to 25 per year per each of these two interagency communities of interest, and to restrict the rotations to within a metropolitan area in order to avoid any relocation costs.

Fourth, this amendment requires that personnel doing a rotation receive the same training by the receiving agency that the receiving agency would provide to its own new employees, rather than more elaborate training that would incur costs.

And fifth, this amendment requires that any reports produced pursuant to the amendment be submitted on line rather than published in hard copy.

Let me close by answering a common objection to government reorganization. To quote the 9/11 Commission:

An argument against change is that the nation is at war,

and cannot afford to reorganize in midstream. But some of the

main innovations of the 1940s and 1950s, including the

creation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and even the

construction of the Pentagon itself, were undertaken in the

midst of war. Surely the country cannot wait until the

struggle against Islamic terrorism is over.

I urge my colleagues to take bold action to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our government in countering 21st century national security and homeland security threats by promptly adopting this amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

Mr. President, I wish today to pay tribute to Jonathan M. Topodas, who will be retiring this month after a spectacular 38-year-career with Aetna, one of Connecticut's leading corporate citizens.

Jonathan joined Aetna's law department after graduating from Southern

Methodist University Law School in 1974. Throughout his tenure with the company, he has provided sound legal advice to many of the firm's clients. More recently, Jonathan joined Aetna's Federal relations team, where he currently serves as the vice president and counsel responsible for Federal health legislative and regulatory matters. In this position, Jonathan has been an important voice in debates about critical health care issues, such as Medicare and patient safety.

In addition to his work with Aetna, Jonathan also earned a congressional fellowship through the Brookings Institution in 1979. Through this program, he worked as a counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also serves on the board of directors of the American Benefits Council, and has worked together with respected business organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Jonathan's wife Elaine, an accomplished dancer and teacher, shares his commitment to community service. Elaine is affiliated with several community groups and theaters as a choreographer and director. She is passionate about her work, so much so that she returns to Connecticut during the summer to work with local dance troupes in a variety of settings. I thank Elaine for her contributions to Connecticut's vibrant artistic culture.

In his off-work hours, Jonathan enjoys spending time with his three children and two grandchildren. He also loves to explore his deep Greek heritage. Jonathan's ancestors made their living as divers in the Aegean Sea, and Jonathan is known to regale his friends and colleagues with fascinating anecdotes about Greek history and culture, such as the history of the Hippocratic Oath.

I wish Jonathan Topodas, and his family, nothing but the best as he gets ready to begin a well-deserved retirement.

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

Mr. President, today the International Atomic Energy Agency has issued its latest report on the nuclear weapons development program of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This latest IAEA report is the clearest warning about a potentially catastrophic threat to the United States since the Hart-Rudman Commission in January of 2001 predicted a major terrorist attack on our homeland, which, of course, occurred about 9 months later.

The IAEA's message today is similarly stark. The extremist terrorist regime that rules Iran is actively working to possess nuclear weapons, and the time to stop them is running out. The Obama administration deserves credit for rallying the international community to put unprecedented diplomatic and economic pressure on the Iranian regime. But the sad fact is nothing the United States and our international partners have done has changed Iran's egregious, threatening, and in many cases murderous behavior, its pursuit of nuclear weapons, its sponsorship of terrorism, its infiltration of neighboring countries, its responsibility for training and equipping terrorists and extremists who have killed literally hundreds of American citizens in Iraq and throughout the Middle East or its repression of its own people.

On the contrary, in all of these areas, notwithstanding the increasing international diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime in Iran, that regime's behavior has only grown more emboldened and more reckless.

I know some have argued that the United States and our international partners can live with a nuclear Iran and that we can contain it. But the recent discovery of an Iranian terrorist plot, which was to be carried out on U.S. soil, killing the Saudi Ambassador here, targeting Members of Congress, and perhaps eventually the Israeli Ambassador and Embassy provide the clearest possible evidence of why we cannot hope to contain a regime as fanatical, expansionist, and brutal as the one that now rules Iran, particularly when it has the fearsome club of nuclear weapons capacity.

If the Iranian regime acquires a nuclear weapons capability, it will be because the world, including us, allowed that to happen. It is still within our power to stop it. But it will require, in my opinion, more than further incremental pressure--which is to say more of what we have already been doing, which clearly has not changed the behavior of the regime in Tehran.

It is time for the United States and our international partners to undertake what I would call nonincremental measures against the Iranian regime, and among those I would include tough sanctions on its central bank. It is also time for Congress to pass the new and tougher Iran sanctions legislation, which is in the Banking Committee and which over three-fourths of the Senate, in a very strong bipartisan statement, has cosponsored. There is no reason we cannot pass that bill before the end of this calendar year.

Finally, it is time for the United States and our international partners to move beyond the formulation that has grown routine--and I am afraid ultimately hollow--which is that ``all options are on the table'' when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons development program and its terrorist actions. It is time for an unequivocal declaration--all the more so in response to the IAEA report today--that we will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, we and our international partners--by peaceful means, if we possibly can, but with military force if we absolutely must.

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

Madam President, I thank our leader. Again, I have had many conversations about things political, which will not surprise anybody who is hearing me speak. But perhaps people will be surprised that Senator Reid and I have probably had as many conversations about matters spiritual and personal. Those conversations tie us together forever.

It is my honor to welcome to the Senate Jonathan Sacks, the chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, and to thank our extraordinary Chaplain Barry Black for joining me in hosting the chief rabbi.

The truth is that I knew Chief Rabbi Sacks from his writings before I knew him personally. He has written 24 books, the most recent of which was published earlier this year, called ``The Great Partnership, God, Science and the Search for Meaning.'' His writing is extremely insightful. It is broadly accessible. Perhaps paraphrasing the old commercial--and the occupant of the chair, being from New York, will remember this about Levy's Jewish Rye: ``You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's Jewish Rye.'' Well, you don't have to be Jewish to benefit from Rabbi Sack's writing.

He is the sixth incumbent of the Chief Rabbi position in the United Kingdom, having served in that position since 1991. The role was formalized in 1845. He was knighted by Her Majesty the Queen in 2005, and then on the 27th of October, 2009, was made a life peer, taking his seat in the House of Lords, where he sits on the cross benches as Baron Sacks of Aldgate in the City of London. So we welcome Rabbi Sacks not just as the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom but as a member of a fellow legislative body. He has spoken with remarkable wisdom and insight and has formed my faith in so many ways.

As I heard him give the opening prayer today, I could not help but think that he stands in a proud tradition that began with those remarkable Christian reformists who left England to come more than two or three centuries ago to our shores, forming the United States of America more than two centuries ago, and in our founding documents, responding to their faith, but also creating the foundation of the liberties that succeeding generations of Americans have enjoyed and that we in

this Chamber work hard to protect and strengthen every day.

Again, I thank the Chair and the leader. I particularly thank Chief Rabbi Sacks for honoring us with his presence and his words today.

Mr. President, today Senators Collins, Carper, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and I are introducing bipartisan, compromise legislation to rescue the United States Postal Service, USPS, from financial ruin and secure its commercial health into the future.

Five years ago, Senators Collins and Carper led Congress in the adoption of postal reform legislation. The speed of the migration to internet communications, combined with the recent economic downturn, means we need to revisit the Postal Service's financial viability again. This year, Senator Brown and I joined Senators Collins and Carper in proposing the 21st Century Postal Service Act.

The Postal Service needs a fundamental restructuring of the way it meets its obligations to the public, to its customers--including individual and business mailers--and to its employees. If our reform legislation is adopted, we are confident this time USPS, which was founded in the 18th century, will survive and flourish into the 21st.

Too many people still rely on the Postal Service for us to sit back and allow its demise. Despite a 22 percent drop in mail volume in four years, the Postal Service will deliver 167 billion pieces this year. It is the second largest private sector employer in our country after Wal- Mart and has 557,000 career employees. It has 32 thousand post offices, which represents more domestic retail outlets than Wal-Mart, Starbucks and McDonalds combined.

The financial health of the USPS has been deteriorating for years. But the rapid changeover to electronic communications and the recent economic downturn have swept it up into a financial death spiral. In this fiscal year, 2011, the Postal Service first projected a total loss of $8 billion. That was in July. By September, it revised its estimate and now says it will lose $10 billion. Unless major reform is adopted, the Postal Service will run out of money to deliver the mail sometime next summer.

That is why we are introducing this comprehensive legislation to put a number of cost saving measures in place. Let me summarize just a few of the most important provisions.

Of great interest to the American public will be our provision related to 5-day delivery. As you all know, the Postal Service has been pushing to reduce the number of days it delivers mail each week from six to five. USPS believes this will achieve $3 billion in savings.

Communities across the country, however, are deeply concerned about what this would mean for people who rely on Saturday delivery for critical medications or newspapers.

We are mindful of these concerns, so our legislation would bar the Postal Service from moving to 5-day delivery until two years after enactment of our bill and, in the meantime, reduce costs in other ways. The Government Accountability Office would have to verify that sufficient savings cannot be achieved without going to 5-day delivery. USPS also would have to identify customers and communities that might be disproportionately affected by 5-day delivery and develop remedies to address their concerns.

Our bill also recognizes that the Postal Service must continue to decrease the number of its employees. Thus, we authorize USPS to offer buyouts to help it transition to a smaller workforce. To ensure the Postal Service can pay for these buyouts, we direct the Office of Personnel Management to refund to the Postal Service what everyone agrees has been an overpayment by USPS into the Federal Employees Retirement System. Using this money to support buyouts, the Postmaster General believes he may be able to reduce the Postal Service workforce by as many as 100,000 employees over the next three years and save $8 billion a year.

To achieve healthcare savings, we would allow the Postal Service to work with its employee unions and the Office of Personnel Management to try to develop and agree on a new health plan for postal employees. The Postmaster General is confident that he and the postal unions can agree on an approach that could cut healthcare costs significantly, while retaining adequate benefits.

Finally, our bill would help USPS get out from under the onerous weight of its current pre-funding requirements for its retiree health benefits by recalibrating the payments and amortizing them over time. This, too, will provide significant financial relief to the Postal Service.

We know many of our proposals will be controversial. But without taking controversial steps, the Postal Service will not make it. We are pursuing broad changes rather than working around the edges to put the Postal Service back on the road to recovery. The Postmaster General has told us he needs to cut $20 billion from the USPS' annual budget, and we are giving him and his employees the tools to make that happen. The bottom line is we must act quickly to prevent a Postal Service collapse and we must act boldly to secure its future.

The U.S. Postal Service is not an 18th Century relic. It is a great 21st Century national asset. But times are changing rapidly and so too must the Postal Service, if it is to survive.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed In the Record.

Mr. President, today Senators Collins, Carper, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and I are introducing bipartisan, compromise legislation to rescue the United States Postal Service, USPS, from financial ruin and secure its commercial health into the future.

Five years ago, Senators Collins and Carper led Congress in the adoption of postal reform legislation. The speed of the migration to internet communications, combined with the recent economic downturn, means we need to revisit the Postal Service's financial viability again. This year, Senator Brown and I joined Senators Collins and Carper in proposing the 21st Century Postal Service Act.

The Postal Service needs a fundamental restructuring of the way it meets its obligations to the public, to its customers--including individual and business mailers--and to its employees. If our reform legislation is adopted, we are confident this time USPS, which was founded in the 18th century, will survive and flourish into the 21st.

Too many people still rely on the Postal Service for us to sit back and allow its demise. Despite a 22 percent drop in mail volume in four years, the Postal Service will deliver 167 billion pieces this year. It is the second largest private sector employer in our country after Wal- Mart and has 557,000 career employees. It has 32 thousand post offices, which represents more domestic retail outlets than Wal-Mart, Starbucks and McDonalds combined.

The financial health of the USPS has been deteriorating for years. But the rapid changeover to electronic communications and the recent economic downturn have swept it up into a financial death spiral. In this fiscal year, 2011, the Postal Service first projected a total loss of $8 billion. That was in July. By September, it revised its estimate and now says it will lose $10 billion. Unless major reform is adopted, the Postal Service will run out of money to deliver the mail sometime next summer.

That is why we are introducing this comprehensive legislation to put a number of cost saving measures in place. Let me summarize just a few of the most important provisions.

Of great interest to the American public will be our provision related to 5-day delivery. As you all know, the Postal Service has been pushing to reduce the number of days it delivers mail each week from six to five. USPS believes this will achieve $3 billion in savings.

Communities across the country, however, are deeply concerned about what this would mean for people who rely on Saturday delivery for critical medications or newspapers.

We are mindful of these concerns, so our legislation would bar the Postal Service from moving to 5-day delivery until two years after enactment of our bill and, in the meantime, reduce costs in other ways. The Government Accountability Office would have to verify that sufficient savings cannot be achieved without going to 5-day delivery. USPS also would have to identify customers and communities that might be disproportionately affected by 5-day delivery and develop remedies to address their concerns.

Our bill also recognizes that the Postal Service must continue to decrease the number of its employees. Thus, we authorize USPS to offer buyouts to help it transition to a smaller workforce. To ensure the Postal Service can pay for these buyouts, we direct the Office of Personnel Management to refund to the Postal Service what everyone agrees has been an overpayment by USPS into the Federal Employees Retirement System. Using this money to support buyouts, the Postmaster General believes he may be able to reduce the Postal Service workforce by as many as 100,000 employees over the next three years and save $8 billion a year.

To achieve healthcare savings, we would allow the Postal Service to work with its employee unions and the Office of Personnel Management to try to develop and agree on a new health plan for postal employees. The Postmaster General is confident that he and the postal unions can agree on an approach that could cut healthcare costs significantly, while retaining adequate benefits.

Finally, our bill would help USPS get out from under the onerous weight of its current pre-funding requirements for its retiree health benefits by recalibrating the payments and amortizing them over time. This, too, will provide significant financial relief to the Postal Service.

We know many of our proposals will be controversial. But without taking controversial steps, the Postal Service will not make it. We are pursuing broad changes rather than working around the edges to put the Postal Service back on the road to recovery. The Postmaster General has told us he needs to cut $20 billion from the USPS' annual budget, and we are giving him and his employees the tools to make that happen. The bottom line is we must act quickly to prevent a Postal Service collapse and we must act boldly to secure its future.

The U.S. Postal Service is not an 18th Century relic. It is a great 21st Century national asset. But times are changing rapidly and so too must the Postal Service, if it is to survive.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed In the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to lend their swift support to the pending free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that have at last come before this Chamber. In approving these FTAs, we have an opportunity to show the American people that we in Congress are prepared to set aside partisan politics and come together to do something truly important to help our nation at a time when our economy is under unprecedented pressure.

Simply put, free trade agreements like the ones before us today are not a choice for the United States--they are a necessity. As President Clinton used to point out, only 4 percent of the world's population lives in the United States, and there is only so much we can sell to each other. Creating new jobs and growing our economy requires tapping into the other 96 percent. And that requires breaking down trade barriers and lowering tariffs so that American goods can reach more consumers at a price they can afford.

That is precisely what these three FTAs will accomplish. This legislation is a jobs bill that won't add a dime to the deficit. Instead, it will add $10 to $12 billion to our GDP, grow U.S. exports by $13 to $15 billion, and support an additional 100,000 American jobs.

These FTAs are not only critical for our economic recovery, however. They are essential to our global leadership and our national security.

In the case of the Korea-U.S. FTA, known as KORUS, the success or failure of this measure is inseparable from U.S. leadership in the Asia-Pacific region. The balance of power in Asia will determine the shape of the 21st century and whether it will be an American century or a Chinese century. Our friends and allies across this region are looking to Washington. In the face of a rising Beijing, they want to know if the U.S. is a country they can count on, or whether we are in retreat. From Japan to India to Australia, there is no test for American leadership today that is more urgent than approving our FTA with South Korea.

That is because the competition for the future in the Asia-Pacific is as much about economic power as it is about military power. Since 2000, approximately 50 free trade agreements have been put in place in East Asia alone, with approximately 80 additional agreements currently under negotiation. The United States is party to just four FTAs in the Asia- Pacific region.

Passing KORUS is the first step to righting this wrong and restoring a balance of economic power that favors America. Doing so will send an unequivocal message across the Asia-Pacific of American strength and commitment. It will also deepen one of our most important alliances in the world, with the Republic of Korea--a dynamic, free market democracy that has climbed from the depths of poverty and the devastation of war to become a model for the entire planet and a great global ally in the cause of freedom.

The economic benefits of KORUS are also extraordinary. This FTA will increase exports of American goods to Korea by around $11 billion once the agreement is fully in effect, supporting as many as 70,000 additional jobs here in the United States.

The agreement will also grant American firms greater access to Korea's $580 billion services market, creating new jobs for American workers in sectors from delivery and telecommunications services to energy and environmental services.

While South Korea is on the cusp of becoming our third-largest free trade partner after Canada and Mexico, free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama also offer enormous opportunities for the United States and will open the way for tremendous growth here in our own hemisphere.

Colombia is the oldest democracy in Latin America and one of America's most steadfast allies in that region. Like South Korea, Colombia is a great global success story--a country that has overcome narco-insurgency and terrorism, and a pro-American bulwark against Hugo Chavez's corrupt authoritarianism.

By completing this FTA, the U.S. will strengthen not only our Colombian allies, but also our shared values of democracy, rule of law, and the free market across Latin America.

The U.S.-Colombia FTA will also strengthen our own economy--expanding U.S. exports by more than $1.1 billion, increasing U.S. GDP by $2.5 billion, and creating thousands of U.S. jobs. Keep in mind, currently Colombia collects $100 in tariffs on U.S. exports for every $1 the United States levies on Colombian goods. With this FTA, that will end.

Similarly, the U.S.-Panama FTA will eliminate tariffs and other barriers to

U.S. exports, promote economic growth, and expand trade with one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America. American companies will be granted immediate access to Panama's $21 billion services market, including priority areas such as financial services and telecommunications. Panama's economy expanded 6.2 percent in 2010, with similar annual growth forecasts through 2015. All of this translates to more opportunities for American workers.

Some have argued that free trade agreements threaten to increase our trade deficit. However, as the U.S. Department of Commerce recently pointed out, in recent years, U.S. manufacturers have run a $47 billion trade surplus with our FTA partners; by contrast, we have incurred a trade deficit of $823 billion with countries where no FTAs are in place.

Time is of the essence. If we delay any further on these agreements, it will cost our country dearly in jobs and growth. The rest of the world is not standing still.

The European Union finalized a free trade agreement with South Korea over the summer, and Canada implemented a free trade agreement with Colombia just weeks ago. If we do not act, jobs and market share that could have gone to U.S. companies will instead head to their competitors in Europe and Canada. That is why we must act now.

In conclusion, let me underscore how important it is that these FTAs are the beginning, not the end, of a revived American global trade agenda. In order to get our economy back on track, in order to create the new jobs we need, in order to lead the world economically, the U.S. must have a forward-looking, optimistic trade liberalization vision.

That is true not only in the Asia-Pacific and Latin America but also in the Middle East where millions of people who have long suffered and stagnated under thuggish dictators are at last grasping for greater political freedom and economic opportunity. More than foreign aid, countries like Tunisia and Egypt need the U.S. and Europe to lower trade barriers. That is why I believe so strongly that the U.S. should immediately begin negotiations for an FTA with Tunisia. Tunisia is a small country, but it is the place where the Arab Spring began and consequently critical to the future of Arab democracy.

I strongly urge the Obama administration to begin negotiations on a free trade agreement with Tunisia as quickly as possible. The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for economic progress, prosperity, democracy and peace will be.

Beginning today with the passage of these critical free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, we take another step towards restoring our economy and strengthening our global leadership.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about two of the votes we will be casting at approximately 5:30 this afternoon, and to explain how I am going to vote and why. On the first, the legislation regarding China's currency policy, I am going to vote no, and I want to explain why.

Managing our economic, military, and diplomatic relations with China is going to be one of the great challenges of this century. China is obviously a rising power today, though not one without problems, as I will get to in a moment. We have come to a point--China and the United States--where we not only interact and sometimes bump up against each other militarily, diplomatically, and economically, we also, in many ways, have become dependent on one another. What each of us does has an effect on the other, and often a significant effect. That is why I say one of the great challenges of this century will be to manage our relations with China in a way that is certainly beneficial and protective to the United States but, hopefully, to China, from its perspective, as well.

I say this as background to what I want to say about China's currency policy. I am troubled by China's currency policy. China has obviously kept its currency too low. It is undervalued, and that has resulted in products being made in China selling elsewhere at a price that is lower than other manufacturers can compete with, including American manufacturers that are directly in conflict with China. So we are right to be upset about that policy. Our government has been expressing its frustration, its anger, to the Chinese

Government. We have been negotiating, cajoling. I must say, in acknowledgment of reality, that the Chinese have slowly allowed their currency to rise approximately 30 percent in value over the last 6 years, but it should be allowed to rise more.

On the other hand, I do want to say, in fairness, that China's currency policy does have effects that are not all bad for everybody in the United States. The fact its currency is undervalued means some of the products it brings into our country sell at a lower cost, and that is obviously particularly important to middle-income and lower income families who are out buying products that otherwise would cost more. So I understand this legislation to be an expression of anger at the Chinese Government and an attempt to pressure the Chinese Government to more rapidly allow its currency to rise.

I would say, as I understand it, the legislation before us is intended as a warning shot across China's bow, as it were. But China may, from its perspective, see this as an attempt to make a direct attack, a direct hit on its bow, and it may be tempted to retaliate economically. And of course the worst result would be that we would end up in a mutually damaging trade war.

In some sense, it is no surprise we are considering legislation such as this now--though I think at any time we would be concerned about China's currency policy--because throughout history, during times of economic recession, such as the one we are in now--a recession that we are fighting to come out of and another recession we worry we are about to go into--nations have repeatedly become protectionist in their economic and trade policies. But history also shows most of the time that protectionist policy makes the economic problems worse, not better.

Today--and here I get back to what I said about China being a rising power but not one without problems--China's economy, in its way, is also fragile. It is dealing with a bubble in real estate values that is growing. As the papers today indicate, its banks are losing their credibility, inflation is rising, and unemployment is rising. So it would be foolish for China to get into a trade war with us in response to legislation such as this. China, in fact, may be more vulnerable in a trade war than we are. But China's vulnerability economically today carries great risk for the United States and the world. If a trade war sends China's economy into a recession or worse, the resultant economic instability would seriously hamper prospects for the global economic recovery that everybody hopes for, and of course it would greatly dampen our hopes for an American economic recovery and creation of more jobs here at home.

Bottom line: I think the risks this proposal will aggravate the current global and American economic problems which concern us most are greater than the rewards of again trying to force China to allow its currency to rise more rapidly, and that is why I will vote against the China currency legislation when it comes before us later this afternoon.

I also want to speak about the American Jobs Act, which will come before us for a cloture vote. We are, obviously, hearing of Americans-- related to what I have just talked about--going through what I think is the most difficult economic period in our history since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Unemployment hovers at around 9 percent, which translates into millions and millions of people out of work, and millions more who are worried they are going to be next to lose their jobs. Confidence in our future among the American people, among critical decisionmakers and businesses, is at a real low. Confidence in our national government is low and falling. Anger at our rising national debt is high and rising. The American people are demanding we do something, particularly to protect the jobs they have and create new jobs if they have already lost them.

It is in that context the President proposed the American Jobs Act--a series of interesting ideas aimed at creating jobs that will cost almost $\1/2\ trillion. So what am I going to do on this one? On this one, I am going to vote against the filibuster of the American Jobs Act, because I believe our country and our constituents need and deserve a debate here in the Senate on what each of us, all of us, think we should do to get our economy moving again. It should be an open debate, without an effective limit on amendments, with many ideas being offered as to what we should do, and hopefully that will lead us to some consensus. So I am going to vote against filibuster in the hope we will bring about such a debate.

But I must say, if cloture is granted and the filibuster is ended, I will seek to amend the American Jobs Act down to a very few of its constituent parts that I think are worth their cost. If a vote were called on the American Jobs Act as it is now--in other words, if the tree were filled and that is what happened--I would vote against the American Jobs Act, and I want to explain why.

The bottom line here is I don't believe the potential in this act for creating jobs justifies adding another $\1/2\ trillion to our almost $15 trillion national debt. In fact, I think the most important thing we can do to improve our economy, reduce unemployment, and create jobs is to bring our national debt under control. The best way to do that is to adopt a tough, comprehensive, balanced debt reduction plan, such as the one recommended by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission.

The Budget Control Act, which we adopted over the summer to deal with the debt ceiling, created a so-called supercommittee, the Joint Special Committee, and that committee of 12 now gives us another chance to deal with our debt in a constructive and bipartisan way.

We all know it is not going to be easy, but the American Jobs Act would make the task of the Joint Special Committee even more difficult because it spends almost $\1/2\ trillion we don't have, $\1/2\ trillion the act now proposes to raise with a surtax on people making more than $1 million a year.

I don't have any objection to a tax increase of that kind. But if we use it for the American Jobs Act, it is not going to be there to be used by the Joint Special Committee as part of an overall bipartisan debt reduction plan. We desperately need to have some sources of revenue, along with spending cuts, to adopt the kinds of reductions in our debt that the country's future urgently needs.

Let me come back to what I said a moment ago and try to explain briefly why I believe these two great problems we have, our limping economy, our persistent level of high unemployment and our national debt, come together and, more explicitly, why I believe that reducing our debt is actually the best thing we can do to create jobs.

The jobs we need are going to come from the private sector. Government in our system economically never has created the jobs itself. It shouldn't. It can't, anymore, because we don't have the money to do so. The jobs always will come where most people have been employed in our country, and that is in the private sector.

If you chart corporate investment on the same graph as job creation, you will see the two lines follow each other almost exactly. This is a chart prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Federal Government. Over the last 50 years, beginning in 1961 and going to 2011, it charts two things. The gray line is investment in real equipment and software spending, and the purple line is private employment numbers.

When I saw this, I thought it was a stunning chart and very compelling, because you can see that corporate and private business investment is almost exactly along the same line. There is a little bit of a digression here because jobs fell more than investment, but investment was falling and jobs fell at the same time for 50 years.

I think the single most significant predictor of job growth in our country is business investment. So we have to ask ourselves, how could we stimulate that kind of business investment today. Because that is what we need, we need these jobs. I regret to say I don't believe we can do it with the mix that is in the American Jobs Act. It seems to me like a kind of ministimulus. The stimulus of $800 billion that was adopted a few years ago, which I supported, I think made the economy better than it otherwise would have been, but it didn't give the economy what the President said he hoped and we all hoped it would give,

which was a jolt. This American Jobs Act, which is kind of a ministimulus that will cost $\1/2\ trillion, is less likely, for obvious mathematical reasons, to give the economy the jolt. But it will cost $\1/2\ trillion we won't have and will have to find somewhere to raise.

To me, what we have got to do is restore confidence in people in the business sector to invest. That is what is missing today in our economy. They don't have confidence in our economic future. They don't have confidence in our government--us. They don't have confidence that we will work together to reduce our debt, to create some predictability for them in the years ahead.

That is why I say the best thing we can do to restore the confidence of the business community necessary for them to begin investing again-- they have got the money; they are just not spending it because they are nervous about the future--is for us to come together, hopefully led by the Joint Special Committee, in a bipartisan debt reduction program. It is not this American Jobs Act. I know it has been put forward with good intentions, but I don't think it does the job we need it to do for America, and I know it will cost another $\1/2\ trillion we desperately need to reduce our debt which will do the job we need it to do to create new jobs for our fellow Americans.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to draw the attention of my colleagues to the approach of a very special day in the history of our friend and partner, the Republic of China--ROC--on Taiwan. On October 10, 1911--precisely 100 years ago--the Republic of China was founded, and since then has celebrated October 10 as its National Day.

Over the course of this century, the Republic of China has been a firm friend of the United States--from World War II to the Cold War, up to the present day. More recently, the ROC on Taiwan has emerged as one of the great success stories of the past century--a free market democracy that is a model for the entire region.

I believe that it is especially appropriate to note this anniversary on the Senate floor because of the unique and important role that the U.S. Congress has played in supporting the U.S.-Taiwan relationship, by virtue of the Taiwan Relations Act. Unique among all of our international partnerships, the TRA established in law America's commitment to support the people of Taiwan as they seek a safe and secure place in the world.

I am grateful for the opportunity to wish the people of Taiwan my congratulations on this auspicious anniversary, and hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating a very special National Day.

Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in urging the Senate to adopt this resolution and replenish the disaster relief fund without further delay.

To so many people struck by disaster this year, this fund is a life preserver to help carry them over until they can get back on their feet and begin the long, hard road to recovery. Without assistance from this fund, many disaster survivors would have no place to live due to damaged and exposed homes; critical commuting routes would remain impassable; and debris would mar communities and morale for months on end.

We are not just talking about a few disaster areas. This year seems like a record for major disasters, affecting all parts of our country. Nearly every State has sought and received assistance, which is why the fund is now perilously low. It has dwindled to about $377 million. At this rate, Senate appropriators say the fund may last for just days.

As I speak, wildfires are still blazing through drought stricken central Texas. The worst wildfire in Texas history closed area schools down last week, 1,500 homes were destroyed in hundreds of fires, and tens of thousands of acres have been scorched.

My home State of Connecticut was among those affected when Hurricane Irene swept ashore at the end of August, bringing gale force winds and tidal surges that knocked out power for days in many areas, damaged millions of dollars worth of property, and left whole communities under water. And when Irene struck, it didn't just touch down in one State or two. It sideswiped practically the entire eastern seaboard from North Carolina to Maine.

In Connecticut alone, the early preliminary and therefore probably low estimates of damage from this single disaster are around $300 million.

These major calamities only take us back to the last week of August.

In June and July, record flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers displaced thousands of people and ravaged land throughout the West and Midwest.

A string of tornadoes ripped through the Southeast and Midwest in April, killing hundreds of people, destroying countless homes and businesses and costing billions of dollars. A third of Joplin, MO, was wiped out, and that community continues to struggle to rebuild.

In February, the Midwest and Northeast were buried under 2 feet of snow.

That is not an exhaustive list, but the point is that these disasters have been equal opportunity ravagers, affecting almost every State in the Union this year. In fact, the President has declared this year a state of emergency in 47 States! Only Nevada, West Virginia, and Michigan have been spared.

So the replenishment of the disaster relief fund should not divide us along partisan lines. Nor should it divide us among geographic lines, or city versus rural lines. This fund has been tapped by almost every one of our States, and I know that the people of Connecticut were relieved when they learned that the Federal Government would help them get their lives back on track. I suspect the citizens of every other State that received disaster relief funds were similarly grateful.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter if 2 States or 47 States have been declared disaster areas. Helping people in need is what our Government does. The whole point of a federal government is to handle challenges that individual States, much less individual communities, cannot. The defense of our Nation is first and foremost among these Federal responsibilities, but so is providing aid to people and States following a natural or man-made disaster that takes as heavy a toll as this year's disasters have.

Congress has a long history of supplementing the disaster relief fund to cover those in need. From 2003 to 2010, $12.3 billion was appropriated through the regular appropriations process. But six times that much--$73.4 billion--was appropriated through supplemental funding.

It should be noted that only a small part of the administration's request seeks supplemental funding. The bulk of the request is for fiscal year 2012, and the aid requested constitutes disaster relief within the meaning of the Budget Control Act, which allows discretionary spending levels to be raised up to a certain limit--a limit that is not breached by the administration's request.

Already FEMA has had to start prioritizing its relief activities so that those in most immediate need can be assisted. In other words, longer term recovery projects not yet in the FEMA pipeline have been put on hold. That is how low the reserves are in the disaster recovery fund.

Current and future survivors will continue to receive assistance to help replace or repair damages to property or cover other personal losses. States will also continue to receive reimbursement for debris removal, emergency response and protective measures, and other critical needs. But FEMA has essentially had to begin rationing aid. That is just plain wrong. The people who suffer in one disaster are no more or less entitled to aid than those who suffer in another disaster. We are a humane country, not a selectively humane country.

As I said when I toured flooded homes on the Connecticut shore 2 weeks ago, the Federal Government does not default on its obligations-- whether we are talking about debts to foreign nations or promised aid to its own citizens in need, through no fault of their own.

I have faith my colleagues will come together across party lines, as we have done so many times in the past, to replenish FEMA's disaster relief fund, which was designed to help make people whole again after major disasters.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend my friend and colleague, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, on the outstanding speech he delivered yesterday at the Jesse Helms Center in Wingate, NC. I share Senator Rubio's conviction that America is at our best in the world when we put our values at the center of our foreign policy, beginning with a commitment to the cause of freedom. Senator Rubio's thoughtful warning against the danger of withdrawing behind our borders is especially timely and important. He is absolutely right that, when we do not confront monsters like al-Qaida abroad, they will sooner or later come to threaten us here at home.

I thank Senator Rubio for delivering such a lucid and visionary speech. His remarks reaffirm for me the critical leadership role that I am convinced he will play in this chamber, and in our country, in the years to come. His voice is an important one. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Senator Rubio's remarks as prepared for delivery.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the memory of Elmer B. Staats, one of the great civil servants of the post-World War II era. A former Comptroller General of the United States and head of the General Accounting Office, as GAO was then called, Mr. Staats died July 23 in Washington at the age of 97.

Elmer Staats had the distinction of serving under every U.S. President from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan. But more important than the longevity of his career was his record of professional achievement. A leading figure in the world of public administration and government accountability, Elmer Staats was renowned for his dedication to constructive change and good government principles.

Appointed Comptroller General in 1966, Elmer Staats helped lay the foundation for the modern-day GAO. He transformed it from an agency primarily known for financial audit work to one that evaluates the effectiveness of virtually every Federal activity at home and abroad, from antipoverty programs to military spending to investments in infrastructure.

At the start of Staats' tenure at GAO, accountants comprised more than 95 percent of the agency's professional staff. By the time he retired in 1981, the agency's workforce included such diverse professionals as economists, social scientists, attorneys, and computer experts--all career employees hired on the basis of their knowledge, skills, and ability.

Under Elmer Staats, GAO took a lead role in issuing auditing guidance. In 1972, the Comptroller General issued the first edition of what has come to be known as the ``Yellow Book''--the final word on government auditing standards. He also directed GAO to issue guidance to help state and local auditors and was instrumental in establishing intergovernmental audit forums in the 1970s.

In addition, Elmer Staats sought to strengthen ties with the international auditing community through his active involvement and leadership in the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions. He founded GAO's International Auditor Fellowship Program in 1979, which enables auditors from other countries to meet with GAO staff and acquire new knowledge and perspectives.

His is a living legacy that is still delivering results, both for Congress and the American people. Just name a Federal program or policy, GAO has probably reviewed it and made suggestions for improvement. Last year, measurable financial benefits from GAO work totaled nearly $50 billion, an $87 return on every dollar invested in