Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to commend the minority leader for that beautiful tribute. I have been privileged to be on the floor several times when he has offered tributes to his constituents, and I always find them to be so beautifully written and delivered. I understand he writes them himself.

I was very touched by his memories of a special constituent. I wish him and all the people of Kentucky a great holiday season.

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about the Homeland Security appropriations bill--one of the nine we approved this morning. I was proud to work with my ranking member, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Dan Coats. I am very proud to work with the Senator from New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg, who serves as honorary vice chair of the committee because of his seniority and expertise in this area. I wanted to put into the Record some facts about the bill.

This bill has been openly and publicly debated for almost 1 year. There are some very important components of the bill that I think are of great interest to the people we serve. First, the bill totals, for 2012, $39.858 billion, slightly below $40 billion. It is not one of the largest in our government, but it is neither the smallest. It is sort of in the midrange of departments, but it is a very important department--one just created, as you know, in the aftermath and the heartbreak of 9/11. It is a department that has had tremendous success in the 10 years but with a lot of growing pains. They had a lot of difficulty getting their feet underneath them and bringing in agencies from around the government to provide the frontline of defense against attacks to our homeland.

I commend Secretary Napolitano for the great work she has done in the last 2 years to strengthen this department, to make very tough decisions, which all our Administrators are having to make, about how to allocate resources and set priorities because we are reducing budgets. We are in the process of eliminating, trimming, and rescinding. That is very difficult because, frankly, almost everything we do on the Federal level is important to somebody, to some entity, to some State, to some business cluster or to some activity of the government. Despite the common refrain that there is a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse, the fact is, we have been shaving that, eliminating that substantially, over the last several years. Now we are down to the bone and muscle.

When you are defending a country, you need to have a lot of muscle. When you are defending a country, you have

to have a lot of brain power. Then you have to have a lot of backbone. That is what this bill represents, a lot of muscle and a lot of strength to defend our country. There is no guarantee we will not have another attack, but this is the bill that makes that less likely.

That is why I will fight, as chair of this committee, to strengthen it and to have reliable partners at the State and local levels because we cannot do this alone. We need our local police and our State governments' eyes on the ground, in neighborhoods--both in urban areas, as the Chair basically represents in Delaware--but we also need them out in rural areas, where we have very sophisticated and serious potential targets for terrorists in terms of power structure, power generation, electrical structure, energy structure, our ports, which are mostly in urban areas, but sometimes we will find a certain niche port somewhere out there sort of off the beaten path. We need to protect it all. So we have to be very careful, and the members of the committee worked very hard to allocate the $40 billion that was given to us--$39 billion--which was less than we got last year, in an appropriate way. It was less than we got last year, but the needs are greater.

Drug trafficking is increasing in Mexico, not decreasing. The pressures on our southern border are increasing, not decreasing. The need to expedite our travelers faster through the screening, both for commercial and vacation travel, is increasing, not decreasing. People think there is some kind of way we can come to Washington and wave a magic wand and make all these needs go down. Actually, as the needs are going up, we are flattening and cutting budgets, which makes it very difficult. My job--and I wish to get this point in--as an appropriator is made even harder, because despite the good work my ranking member has done on helping us to build this bill, as you know, the Republican caucus has been absolutely unmovable on putting any new money on the table--from any source.

We have tried, and the President has tried, to raise revenues from people making over $1 million a year. Actually, you have to make over $1 million to pay this surcharge. We have been unable to convince anyone on the other side--or very few--we have had one or two Republicans who have stood, and I am very proud of them--to say we have to put some more money on the table as we continue to cut programs to close the deficit gap and make sure we have the basics covered.

I think Senators McCain and Kyl think the basics are the border. They may be right, and I have supported them. We have added 1,000 new Border Patrol agents in the last year, but it costs money. We have had to find that money in this bill. So other things had to be reduced. I understand that. Businesses do that all the time. But businesses also need to sell more products and bring in more money. Businesses also can increase the prices of products sometimes to bring in more revenue. We are having a hard time getting the other side of this body to understand that sometimes you have to bring in more revenue, as well as cutting, to make this work.

I am presenting a bill I am proud of, which is $39 billion. It is going to be very difficult to go much further down and to continue to do that which I am going to outline that we do in this bill.

First of all, we spent a lot of time this year--because we had to-- talking about disasters. This was the worst year on record for disasters in the United States--from fires in the West, to floods in the Mississippi, to hurricanes raking the Northeast, to tornadoes. We have just had our fill. The weather service, just last week, came out and said that this year, for the first time since they recorded this, we had over 12 disasters of over $1 billion each. So this year, 2011, was a very tough year. Our members and I spent a lot of time talking about disasters, so I will not do that at this moment. We have done enough talk. We funded FEMA. It was a great victory for people who were looking for our help.

I wish to talk about what else the Homeland Security bill does because it is not just responding to disasters, which I am proud we took care of this morning. We also do a lot of other important work and fund a lot of other important entities in this bill, including securing our borders--the whole border--the northern border, the southern border and ports of entry. I think we have over 125. People don't realize this. They don't see it as they do if they live in Missouri or in Kansas or maybe even in Arkansas. They are not familiar with the borders along Texas or how big they are, and Arizona. But it is a lot of land that has to be covered, and it is the Federal Government's responsibility. It takes a tremendous amount of money to secure this border, but our country wants us to do that. So we have invested in more border agents, in better technology, and I am even trying to come up with some very cost effective ways to improve the physical infrastructure of the borders because not only do they serve to protect our Nation from people who should not come in, but we also have to get a lot of things across our border, such as all the commerce and traffic and vegetables and agricultural products and manufactured products that our businesses depend on to have good trade with Canada and Mexico.

With NAFTA, which is a very important trade foundation for our continent, we just can't close our borders and shut them down. We have to keep them open. America, unlike every other country in the world, is one of the only countries that both has to fight hard for our security but also remain open as a nation. This is a very hard thing to do. We have to have more research and technology, not less. We have to have smarter border crossings, not the old-fashioned, out-of-date type. That is what our bill supports--or, I should say, we try to. We are having a very difficult time because no one will put a dime on the table. So we have to keep finding ways to do this.

We have to enforce our immigration laws. Everybody at home tells us they want the laws enforced. But it costs money to enforce those laws, and that is in this bill. As I said, we have to facilitate trade and protect our currency.

We also secure cyberspace, which is a whole growing enterprise in space that we are learning a great deal about. We will not be fighting wars the way we have in the past. Our enemies will be attacking us in very different and innovative ways--not army to army, navy to navy, or men and women on the battlefield, as we have become accustomed. They may be attacking our utility sector, trying to shut down our financial systems. We are so reliant and interrelated on all the digital networking. It is very frightening to think what could happen, and we have all been in classified briefings to understand what could happen. This bill helps protect all of our Federal agencies and businesses except for Defense. Defense protects themselves. Our bill has to protect the homeland and the private sector, and we have a long way to go--and not just big companies but small companies have to be protected, and we have to work in partnership with them.

Let me mention our TSA in aviation; we fund that. I also want to mention this for Louisiana: Our fishermen have had a terrible time. Maybe in Delaware and other places along the east coast and the west coast my colleagues will understand this. In the gulf, our fishermen are trying to make a living in the middle of hurricanes and oilspills and, in addition, we get crawfish and shrimp dumped from places such as China and Vietnam. So we need money in this bill to enforce those trade laws, and I stepped up and significantly enhanced that effort in this bill. I was proud to do it for the shrimping and fish industries in our country, and particularly along the gulf coast. So that is in this bill as well.

I might mention the Secret Service, which we have to support, in addition to the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection. There is a lot in our $40 billion bill.

Let me just make one other point. We have eliminated $204 million of rescissions in, as I said, low-priority programs. These were eliminated to spend money on high-priority programs. We have reduced administrative funding by over $800 million, and we have reduced the headquarters account by almost $100 million.

I am one to shave some of this money off of administration, but I can't go much further, and I will tell you why. This department is a hard department to manage, and it can't manage itself. Secretary Napolitano must have the resources at the administrative level to

manage a department that is only 10 years old, and that brings disparate agencies together to have them function.

We have seen what happens when we don't invest in management. We have seen what happens when we gut administration. We had a weak shell of FEMA show up after Katrina and just about ruined our efforts for recovery. We are never going to see that again. So I am committed to funding the FEMA administration and to funding the Department. We can cut, and we have made some cuts, but I am telling the other side we just can't keep cutting the administration and then turn around and expect the same agencies to ferret out fraud, waste, and abuse. We need good managers to do that and so we must continue to fund them.

I am proud I was able to include $358 million for six Coast Guard Fast Response Cutters. Those happened to be built in Louisiana--I am proud of that--but the decision was made well before I got to be chair of this committee for that construction. I am proud to have funded that effort and to give the Coast Guard the upgrade of equipment they need to do the work we are asking them to do. Their work just continues to go up. They are a very popular part of our Federal Government. I think everyone loves the Coast Guard. We are very fond of them in Louisiana because we depend on them for so many things, and I think their fleet needs to be upgraded.

Some of these ships are built in other States--some of their infrastructure is in other States--and I am proud to support the Offshore Patrol Cutter. We included $110 million for 40 response boats; another $129 million for maritime patrol aircraft, mission pallets, and spares; and we have $18 million to replace a helicopter that crashed. I could recite some other things, but we have tried to do our best by the Coast Guard, to upgrade the equipment they need to help us during this time.

We have also put in this bill--and I am very proud of this, and I hope the public will see some immediate improvements--250 machines for additional advanced imaging technology. We put in funding to pay for this so that people can get through those security lines faster. We are losing a lot of money as a nation with people stuck in lines, and it is just slowing down our productivity, which is important because our businesses need people to travel.

Of course, being from a State that depends on hospitality--our Presiding Officer just recently visited Louisiana, and we are grateful to him and his family for coming to spend some time with us. We would like everyone to come and spend some time in Louisiana--Lafayette, Baton Rouge. I know the Presiding Officer had a great time and spent some time in hotels and restaurants.

New York depends a lot on tourism, as does Nevada and California, and many other States. When people get hassled too much while traveling, they just stop going. Now, we can't drive our cars everywhere we want to go. So making flying a little easier once again for the public, yet still safe, is something I most certainly want to work on.

Just a couple more comments and then I will close.

I want to commend the group in Louisiana at our Cyber Innovation Center. They received--not out of this bill but out of the Department-- a very small grant to help with the improvement on training the workforce to be the cyber warriors we need them to be. We need to do that in Delaware, we need to do that in Louisiana, we need to do that in Texas, and we need to do it everywhere.

We are not educating and producing the graduates we need to be the cyber warriors of the future. We don't want to have our warrior force-- as much as we are proud to have legal immigrants in our country-- outsourced to India or China or Japan, to have their Ph.D.s or masters or degreed individuals come to do this work. We want to raise our own to do this work, and we can do that. I am proud to support some of those efforts in this bill.

Unfortunately, the tight spending limits necessitated deep cuts in first responder grant programs. While we were able to provide $354 million above the House level for such grant programs, the final agreement cuts funding by 30 percent. I believe the Federal government has a responsibility to work with and assist State and local first responders in developing their capabilities to mitigate, prevent, and respond to all disasters whether they are natural disasters or terrorist attacks.

There are also significant cuts in science and technology activities. While we were successful in mitigating the excessive cuts contained in the House bill by restoring $129 million, the agreement reduces spending by $160 million below fiscal year 2011 levels. I believe that the Department of Homeland Security, like any successful business, must invest in science and technology to address evolving threats and I intend to make this program a priority going forward.

To minimize these reductions, the agreement includes $204 million of rescissions of low priority programs, reduces funding in administrative accounts by over $800 million and reduces Departmental headquarters accounts by $9 million. The agreement also provides for the orderly termination of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement and the Office of Risk Management and Analysis, programs that are either redundant or poorly executed.

During our negotiations with the House, we were able to eliminate a number of objectionable language riders, including three immigration provisions that would have limited the Department's authority to enforce our immigration laws, a provision that would have prohibited Transportation Security Administration employees from collective bargaining, and a provision that would have required TSA to reduce thousands of screeners and transition toward a private sector work force.

I am pleased that we were able to include in the agreement provisions that will: facilitate maintaining or hiring firefighters by local fire departments; allow FEMA to waive recoupment requirements for disaster survivors who, through no fault of their own, received overpayments as much as 6 years ago; extend the National Flood Insurance Program through May 31, 2012; and extend the authorities of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program for 1 year. The agreement also includes a provision that gives States the flexibility to use FEMA hazard mitigation grant funding to reimburse homeowners for storm mitigation work originally completed with a Small Business Administration loan. This provision provides equity of benefits among disaster survivors.

The agreement includes funding for a number of critical investments that will enhance the department's capacity to respond to an evolving threat:

Coast Guard funding includes: $358 million for six Fast

Response Cutters; $77 million for long lead time material for

the sixth National Security Cutter; $25 million for

development and design of the Offshore Patrol Cutter; $110

million for 40 Response Boat Mediums; $129.5 million for two

Maritime Patrol Aircraft, mission pallets, and spares; $18.3

million to replace a helicopter that crashed in 2010; $15.2

in response to the gulf coast oil spill, to enhance oil spill

response capabilities, including 87 new positions; $200.7

million for shore facility projects, infrastructure to

support new assets, and military housing; and $63.5 million

for a new C-130J aircraft, by transfer from the Department of

Defense.

Funding is included for the Transportation Security Administration for: 250 additional Advanced Imaging Technology machines with the capacity to protect people's privacy; 145 new behavior detection officers; 12 additional multi-modal Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response, VIPR, teams; 20 additional explosives detection canine teams; and 53 new positions to strengthen international air cargo security.

The agreement provides resources to Customs and Border Protection to support: 21,370 Border Patrol agents, sustaining the increased levels approved in the Fiscal Year 2010 Supplemental; 21,186 CBP officers working at the ports of entry, including 312 new officers and additional canine teams; $5 million for officer and agent integrity programs, including polygraph testing; $5 million to CBP to work within existing laws to increase collection of antidumping and countervailing duties and implement aggressive options to level the trade playing field for U.S. companies.

The agreement provides $443 million for cybersecurity efforts, an increase of $80 million above Fiscal Year 2011, of

which $22.8 million is for cybersecurity education and awareness. The increase will continue efforts to combat the cyber threat by reducing points of access to Federal computer networks, enhancing intrusion detection through Einstein, and building a cybersecurity workforce through education and training.

So it remains the responsibility of each generation to make the necessary investments to secure our homeland. I take this responsibility seriously, and my members take it seriously as part of our Homeland Security Committee. We worked very hard to produce a good bill for the country. We are proud of this bill. It is about $40 billion of their money. I hope they believe we are allocating it and spending it accordingly.

Mr. President, I look forward to the hearings we are going to have next year on some important topics, and I will close by wishing you and the staff and everyone here a merry Christmas and a happy and blessed holiday.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I will take the opportunity while the floor is relatively quiet to come and explain one of the votes we are going to be asked to cast tomorrow. In fact, it is very timely that I am here on the Senate floor at 2 o'clock in the afternoon because the House, I understand, just passed H. Con. Res. 94, and I am going to ask the Senate to reject that resolution when it comes here tomorrow for our vote. I am asking Democrats and Republicans to join with me in voting no on that resolution. I would like to take a few minutes to explain why. I think pictures are worth a thousand words, so let me just use four to save time.

This is about disasters in 2011. This whole issue is about how we should budget for disasters. It is an important debate that has been one of the many debates Congress has had over this last year, and we are wrapping up that debate in the next 48 hours. So this is a part of that debate.

I think pictures speak louder than words. This is a picture of Joplin, MO, a town that was virtually wrecked by a massive and monster tornado and tornadoes.

This is a picture of the Mississippi River flooding in Cairo, IL. This year, the Mississippi River was at one of its highest levels in some places in over a century. We received our own share of that flooding in Louisiana, which sits at the base of this great Mississippi River basin. So our people, as well as people along the entire Mississippi River Valley, experienced unprecedented flooding.

The lonely and distraught couple sitting in what looks like the middle of an ocean is actually in Nags Head, NC. This is what happened to their beach home as water virtually surrounded them and destroyed that community. Again, this happened this year with Hurricane Irene.

Down here on the far right is a picture of the fires that raged and devastated parts of Texas, which experienced one of the worst droughts in the recorded history of Texas.

What is sad about this debate is I could show picture after picture after picture of communities in our country devastated by tornadoes, fires, hurricanes--disasters that strike without warning and whose impact is virtually impossible to measure until months afterward because of the extraordinary damage. In fact, the Weather Service just this month did a recalculation of 2011 and declared it to be one of the worst disaster years since records have been kept, saying they have now concluded, as enough evidence has come in, that we had over 12 disasters in 1 year--in this year of 2011--over $1 billion each.

So this year was a real outlier, but sadly--and the Presiding Officer has heard it in his State, and we have heard it in my State of Louisiana, and we have heard it around the world--these pictures may not be an aberration. These pictures may show what is to come. And while 2011 was a very bad year, people are starting to think that as a result of the changes in temperature and climate change--and whatever people think the reasons are for that, no one should disagree with the consequences of changing temperature, which are violent weather episodes. The question is, What are we going to do about it and what is the right way to move forward? Let me show my colleagues what the wrong way is before I explain the right way.

This picture depicts the wrong way to respond. This has been suggested by some of my Republican colleagues. They suggest that when the water rises on your home or when the tornado rips you out of your bed and the roof falls on you and your family or when the river water rises and you look out of your second-floor window over your 100- or 200-acre farm and you can't see anything and your cows are swimming and your horses are swimming as well, that what you should do is climb on your roof, call Washington, call the hotline, and identify the offset in the

Federal budget to provide the cost of your rescue. It is laughable. It is supposed to be funny. It is a funny cartoon. But when we think about it, it is really not funny to tell the American people that in order to be rescued, you need to call the budget office of the Federal Government, identify an offset, and then we will send a rescue unit to respond to your emergency. It is not funny. The American people aren't laughing.

So I am going to ask my colleagues to vote no on H. Con. Res. 94 tomorrow because that is exactly what H. Con. Res. 94 does. I should get a big pen and write, ``If you think that grandma here with a cat and the phone is what you want your constituents to look like, then you just go right on and vote for H. Con. Res. 94.''

But I am not going to vote for that concurrent resolution because our leaders wisely--both Republican and Democratic leaders, wisely--in August, in anticipation of this issue, already provided for disaster funding in the Budget Control Act. They already provided for it. We don't have to tell our constituents that before we can send money to help them in Joplin or in Nags Head, NC, or Cairo, IL, or San Antonio or Dallas, TX, they have to identify an offset, because we wisely said within the Budget Control Act, within our efforts to close the budget gap, that we are providing for disaster funding, and that is what we have done. But some Members of the House will continue to want to adhere to trying to identify an offset before disasters can be responded to. They say things such as, we should pay for disasters in the year we respond to them.

I am going to present a chart in just a minute, but first I want to try to explain the second reason this is a faulty way forward.

In 2005, which wasn't that many years ago, the Federal Government allocated $45 billion--actually, I think this number is about $68 billion, and I will show the chart in a minute--in 1 year, and that year was the year of Katrina and Rita, which were the No. 1 and No. 3 most violent and disastrous and costly hurricanes in the history of our country. They happened in the same year to the same State--or to the same area, which was Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. We got the brunt of two of the worst storms that literally flooded a metropolitan area or flooded an area greater than the size of Great Britain. And that amount was $68 billion.

If we followed the poor logic of some on the Republican side that we had to pay for this disaster in that year in the budget, I think we would have probably had to eliminate half of the discretionary budget of the United States of America. I am going to get that exact number. But it is ludicrous to think we would be able to find $68 billion in the budget in that one year. In fact, the whole homeland security budget--it wouldn't be half--the whole homeland security budget is $42 billion. So let me repeat: Instead of half, we would have had to completely eliminate the entire homeland security budget of the United States of America, plus another couple of smaller budgets, to meet the $68 billion requirement. It doesn't make any sense, and it is not right. It is not the right way to budget. It violates the Budget Control Act, and it is so hypocritical that some on the other side are requiring this for domestic expenses when they don't require the same thing for foreign expenses or international expenses.

I would like to put up the next chart. To pour salt on the wound--and I don't quite understand the politics. I don't understand the math. I don't understand the budgetary consequences, and I don't understand the politics. They are wrong on all three counts because this is what those who voted for H. Con. Res. 94 have to go home and explain to their constituents. They are going to have to go home and say: When I was in Congress, I allocated $823 billion for the war in Iraq and required no pay-for. Then I went back to Congress and spent $557 billion in Afghanistan and didn't say a word about that. Then I went back and added a Medicare drug benefit for $180 billion, and we didn't pay for that. Then I went back and sent checks to everyone when George Bush was the President, and those checks cost $124 billion, and we didn't require any offset or budget implication for that. But when Americans had their homes destroyed, their farms flooded, their businesses ruined by disasters, I can't send a dime unless we take it out of health, transportation, or education.

So they said no to this little $8.1 billion--after spending a grand total of $1.68 trillion on all these items. So I do not understand the math. I do not understand their position as to the budget. I most certainly do not understand the politics, and I do not agree with it because I think the American people should come first. Their needs from disasters should come first. We cannot possibly, because of the erratic nature of disasters themselves--we might think we are powerful in the Senate, but we are not more powerful than God, and we are not more powerful than nature; and I am not saying that God causes these storms, but nature has a way--we are not that powerful and we do not know and cannot predict when these will happen. All we can do is respond.

We have responded appropriately in the Senate version of this bill. Our bill will provide funding for FEMA, for the Corps of Engineers, within the budgetary control structure. It will allow us to pay for this over time in future negotiations, which is the wise way to do it. But it will not force us to use disasters that occur in this country as an excuse to continue to ring out costs from health, transportation, and education.

As my colleagues know, I feel very strongly about this issue, and I am proud to say I think many Democrats and, hopefully, some Republicans feel strongly that their constituents at home should come first, that the budget should provide for an immediate response when people are victims of floods or tornadoes or hurricanes or other disasters.

I think most people in the Senate understand 2011 was a tough year. It was a historic year. But the sad thing is, I think we also understand it could repeat itself. Using these disasters, when it was not the case for the war in Iraq, was not the case for the war in Afghanistan, was not the case for Medicare, was not the case for the rebate checks--but when it comes to disasters we cannot seem to find $8.1 billion within the budget control structure. I do not, as I said, understand it.

We have seen this cartoon I have in the Chamber before. I will not go into it. But I think it says beautifully why this is the wrong approach. Again, these pictures speak a thousand words. This other chart shows what a disaster looks like. I wish I had something to show what it feels like to lose everything, and then, when you have lost everything, trying to provide confidence to your own family, to your own children, and to your neighbors, to then listen to the debate in Congress that says: We write a blank check to Iraq, a blank check to Afghanistan, a blank check here, and yet, when it comes to funding for disasters, we have to have this argument.

I am going to ask my colleagues to vote no on H. Con. Res. 94 tomorrow. In voting no, we will reject to the find-the-offset-now requirement. We will honor the agreement made between Republican and Democratic leaders back in August to include this in the Budget Control Act. We will send a powerful signal to our constituents that they come first; that disaster victims should come first in the budget, not last; that we understand how difficult it is for them to rebuild their communities, and the Federal Government wants to be and will be a reliable partner they can depend on in their time of need.

With this ill-advised resolution, we return to an issue that consumed this Chamber for weeks this past fall.

That issue is how we pay for disaster funding--money used by communities destroyed by disasters that are struggling to clean up, rebuild, and move on with their lives after a tragic act of Mother Nature.

We have seen many such events over the past few years--from historic floods in the Midwest, to deadly tornadoes in the South, to the wreckage inflicted on a huge swath of the country earlier this year by Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee.

Back in September, Republicans in the House stood in the way of this critical recovery money, arguing that no funds should be sent to disaster victims until Congress had figured out how to pay for it through other cuts.

That is bad enough on its face. But what made it even more ridiculous is

that this Congress had already agreed on a method for funding disasters. That agreement came over the summer when we passed the Budget Control Act--a measure that received significant support from Democrats and Republicans in both Chambers of Congress.

That act included two contingency funds--funds that could be spent above and beyond the established cap on Federal spending. One of those funds was for overseas contingencies like the wars and rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan that allows for $126 billion in spending above the cap. The other was for disaster relief and included an $11.3 billion cap adjustment for additional spending beyond the regular level.

We made this agreement because we recognized that there is a real cost associated with disaster recovery--a cost that can't always be anticipated because natural disasters, by their very nature, are highly unpredictable.

The stand-alone disaster funding bill we consider today, when combined with the minibus passed last month, will account for $10.4 billion of that $11.3 billion disaster funding cap--an amount completely within the requirements laid out in the bipartisan Budget Control Act.

But now, House Republicans are once again trying to go back on that agreement by requiring that agreed-upon funding be offset with additional across-the-board cuts to discretionary spending.

There are two reasons this is wrong-headed.

Reason No. 1: The House Republicans are creating a double standard regarding offsets--one for defense spending and another for domestic disaster relief.

That is because, in this proposal, they only require an additional offset for domestic disaster spending. They have sent over no such language for the additional funding provided in the bill we just voted on for overseas contingencies.

Let's get to the heart of what that means. It means that House Republicans are saying: No, we don't have to pay for wars in places like Afghanistan or Iraq. But we do have to offset spending for domestic disaster recovery.

Why is that? Why is it that the House Republicans say we are able to rebuild Iraq or Afghanistan without a single word of protest, but we won't rebuild Vermont or New Jersey or Missouri or Louisiana in a similar way?

The omnibus bill has $126 billion in it for the costs of the wars. If we followed the same pay-for standard that the House Republicans are insisting on for disaster relief on the costs of the war, we would have to impose a 24-percent across-the-board cut on the Defense budget or a 12-percent cut on the entire discretionary budget.

This double standard makes no sense. I remind my colleagues that when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the gulf coast, it required appropriations of more than $62 billion in fiscal year 2005 alone. If we applied the House Republican requirement to pay for a disaster of a similar size, we would have to cut domestic spending by 12 percent.

During the 112th Congress, we have not cut defense. We have not increased taxes on individuals who make more than $1 million a year. But the House Republicans want to keep going back to this one small part of the budget to find savings.

So, let's be clear. Here is what the Republicans do not require payment for: Iraq war, $823 billion; Afghanistan war, $557 billion; Medicare drug benefit, $180 billion; and Bush rebate checks, $124 billion.

Now, you ask, what do they require payment for? Community disaster relief, $8.1 billion.

Reason No. 2 of why the House Republicans' plan should be firmly rejected: The House Republicans' plan wouldn't require true across-the- board cuts to pay for disaster spending. It would only require cuts to domestic discretionary spending--a portion of the government that makes up only 14 percent of total expenditures.

In April, we cut domestic discretionary spending for fiscal year 2011 by 7 percent. And the omnibus legislation before the Senate, consistent with the Budget Control Act, cuts it by an additional 1 percent.

This proposal--the one we are currently considering--would pile on to that by cutting another 1.8 percent to domestic programs.

I think we need to be clear about exactly what this would mean. There are consequences to these cuts--real consequences that the American people would feel immediately.

Among them, it means that Title I education funding would be cut by $265 million. That means that almost 1,000 schools serving more than 350,000 disadvantaged students could lose funding, and about 3,700 teachers and aides could lose their jobs.

It means that special education funding would be cut by $199 million. That could lead to the loss of 2,600 education staff serving special needs students.

It means a $146 million cut to Head Start funding, which would eliminate 11,000 low-income students and their families from this critical program.

It would mean a reduction of 400 Border Patrol agents--nearly half the number that we hired and trained since Congress enacted the border security supplemental 16 months ago.

It would mean that 161,000 fewer women, infants, and children would receive food assistance under the WIC program.

It would hurt our efforts to combat terrorism and crime, with more than 5,500 Department of Justice positions becoming vacant through a hiring freeze and furloughs.

It would mean a cut to the IRS enforcement mission, resulting in lost revenues of approximately $4 billion annually. That would increase the deficit by at least six times the magnitude of the proposed reduction.

It would mean a $15 million cut to the senior nutrition program, which means 2 million fewer meals to needy seniors.

The House Republicans would like you to think that these cuts are nothing more than reducing bureaucracy. I beg to differ. These cuts have consequences in the everyday lives of Americans across our Nation.

Here is the bottom line: Instead of being really serious about closing the budget gap and putting new revenues on the table or saying across-the-board cuts for everything, House Republicans continue to use everything, even disasters that strike home, as an excuse to cut health, education, and transportation.

Well, I stand here today and say to them: Enough is enough.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. This Congress made an agreement months ago on how to fund unanticipated disasters. We should stick with that agreement.

There are times and there are places for politics. Aid for disaster victims is not one of them. Victims of natural disasters should not be victimized twice--first by Mother Nature and then by politics in Washington.

There may be another expression of a different side of this argument. I have not heard a good one yet. But I look forward--if any of my colleagues want to come down and take the opposite side of this argument, I am around. I am not going anywhere. I will be here today. I will be here tomorrow. I will be happy to debate them on the floor on this subject. But as the chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I have to take a strong stand on this issue because our budget is the one that basically gets called on to fund these disasters.

Again, if I have to follow the requirement to fund them in the year the money is spent--1 year--I am going to have to come to this floor and tell everyone: We are not going to have a homeland security bill this year because we just had a category 5 strike Miami, and the bill-- as they said last night on the Weather Channel--will exceed $40 billion. So I am going to have to give up our whole bill, and we will have no security for the United States to pay for the disaster in 1 year.

This is the chart I wanted to show. This is how erratic funding can be, as shown on this chart. This shows funding from 2003 to 2012. In 2003, we spent basically a little over $1.7 billion. Then it jumped up to a little over $6 billion. Then, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma--which was in Florida--moved us all the way up to $45 billion in 2005, and then we fell back again to about $7.8 billion. We can see the erratic nature of these storms. It is impossible for us to even get a good average. So the only thing we can do is put a baseline in our bill, and then if disaster strikes, to respond and put it in the Budget Control Act over our 302(b) allocations.

If we do not do it that way, we are going to end up having to scramble

every year to quickly calculate what the disasters were last year and jam it against some budget. It is either going to be education that gets gutted or health that gets gutted or agriculture that gets gutted or homeland security. I do not want to have to be the one to call the thousands of Border Patrol agents whom I have helped to fund in my budget or have to call Senator John McCain or Senator Kyl and say: I am sorry. We have to lay off all the Border Patrol agents along the border in Arizona for a year or two because we had a big storm in Miami, and I have to send the money to Miami.

Whoever heard of such a thing. That is what the Republicans in the House have sent to us. It should be rejected on its face. There is a better way to move forward, and the way is in the Budget Control Act that our leaders wisely have already agreed to.

So we will have this vote tomorrow. Again, I think I have raised three excellent points about why the House approach is wrong and why our approach is correct. If someone wants to come and debate it, I will be happy to maybe try to explain it a little bit more.

I can understand some on the other side who say: We have to find a way to pay for it, even if we have already negotiated, et cetera, but when the other side refuses to put even a new penny on the table to help with some of these things, it makes it even harder to achieve what we are trying to achieve.

I thank the Presiding Officer. I hope my colleagues will hear these arguments and let me know if there is anything further we can explain on it. But I think the picture says a thousand words.

I will close with this again: No American should have to sit on their roof, while the water rises, and identify an offset to finance their own rescue. We are a stronger nation than that. We are a bigger nation than that. We most certainly can provide the funding for FEMA, for the Corps of Engineers, and other funding in the way our Budget Control Act stipulates in this budget.

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

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

Mr. President, while we have a bit of quiet time on the Senate floor this evening, I thought I would make brief remarks about the extraordinary career of MG Benny Landreneau. General Landreneau recently retired as the most senior Adjutant General in the Nation, with nearly 14 years of service as head of the Louisiana National Guard, serving under three Governors, and nearly four decades of service to the State of Louisiana and our Nation.

Over many years I have had the joy and pleasure of calling General Landreneau a friend and a colleague and I have worked closely with him and the 11,000 members of our Louisiana National Guard. Through the September 11 attacks on our country and through Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustaf, and Ike and the recent BP oilspill--one of the largest environmental disasters in our Nation's history--General Landreneau has proven his leadership to the people of Louisiana and our Nation time and time again.

Benny, as he is known by his friends, credits his father with inspiring him to serve in the National Guard. His father Joseph Audley Landreneau was a World War II veteran and engineering soldier and a combat veteran. Benny, who grew up in Vidrine, LA, chose to follow in his father's footsteps and quickly rose through the ranks in the Louisiana National Guard.

As a young man, in 1969 he enlisted as a light weapons infantryman in the 773rd Maintenance Battalion. Two and a half years later he graduated from Officer Candidate School and became a second lieutenant platoon leader as part of the 3671st Maintenance Company. From those very early beginnings in the National Guard, he progressed rapidly through the ranks.

During his time with the Guard, General Landreneau was part of several major campaigns, including a deployment during Desert Storm. During the first gulf war General Landreneau and his 527th Engineer Battalion were tasked with any number of important missions, including the No. 1 mission for the gulf war commander himself, GEN Fred Franks.

General Franks needed an unmanned aerial vehicle landing strip built immediately, so he knew who to call to get that job done. He called Benny Landreneau and his battalion. Need I say that it was done, I am sure, under budget and before time.

After the 527th returned to the command headquarters, General Franks called General Landreneau to thank him for what he did, which was extraordinary, and asked the general what he could do as a return favor. Without blinking an eye, General Landreneau just said:

Sir, please, if you could get us home for Mother's Day, it

would be appreciated.

So all of the mostly guys were home from other States--some women in the battalion as well--and they were thrilled to be home with their parents.

In 1996, shortly after the gulf war, General Landreneau retired from the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources where he served also as a State conservationist for almost 30 years. Since that time, he has taken the National Guard in Louisiana from a strategic reserve force to an operational force that continues to lead the Nation both on and off the battlefield, and I will talk about off the battlefield in just a minute.

General Landreneau was quoted as saying:

The Louisiana National Guard soldiers and airmen are part

of the finest National Guard in America. It is their

dedication and professionalism, their commitment and their

hard work that has made the Louisiana National Guard the

finest guard in America. The Louisiana National Guard has

performed in such an outstanding matter in accepting these

new challenges of being an operational force and responding

to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and deploying throughout

the world when called on and, at the same time, being able to

take up the work of their State emergencies--

Which have been too numerous to count--

and being able to respond to the citizens of this State in an

outstanding fashion.

This is due in part, I say, to his leadership and vision.

General Landreneau has also been instrumental in implementing one of the most phenomenal programs in our country: the Louisiana National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program. It is part of the National Youth ChalleNGe Program. This is what I mean by off-the-battlefield expertise as well as on-the-battlefield expertise.

Some years ago--I think about 15--when General Conway was the general for the National Guard, he helped to start this program that now has graduated over 100,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 18 who are unfortunately drifting from the straight and narrow path. They haven't ended up in prison yet, but they are headed that way. They have given up on themselves. They have gotten into a little bit of trouble and need a second chance. This program offers them that chance.

Under General Landreneau's leadership, we run three of the dozens of programs operating in the United States. I might say we run the best three, having been granted and acknowledged with awards in ceremonies for many years in Louisiana and having graduated the largest number of young people. This has been done because of General Landreneau's extraordinary commitment to the citizens of our State

and to the young people of our State and the respect he has of his rank and file for these men and women to go beyond their regular duties and responsibilities and step up and say: There is an epidemic in America. Our dropout rate is too high. What can the National Guard do, in addition to everything else they do both abroad and at home, to help? It is extraordinary.

His grandchildren and his children are proud of him. I know he is very proud of them.

He has assembled over the last 14 years arguably the most tested staff in the Nation. He is being succeeded as Adjutant General by GEN Glenn Curtis, who has served as General Landreneau's right-hand man for the last 6 years. It is the hallmark of his leadership that General Landreneau leaves his staff ready to step up, ready to serve, and ready to continue the excellent service they have given to the people of our State and our Nation. Although General Curtis will bring his own brand of leadership to the National Guard, there is no doubt, as he has said to me many times, he has learned at the elbow of GEN Benny Landreneau.

In conclusion, I would like to personally, on behalf of the people of our State, thank GEN Benny Landreneau for his many years of service and dedication to the people of Louisiana and our country. I want him to know he has positively impacted our State in ways that will long be remembered. The people of Louisiana are grateful for his service and for his dedication, and we honor his admirable career in the National Guard.

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

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Joan McKinney, who has been a beloved and respected mainstay of the Senate Press Gallery for almost 40 years.

Joan retired recently after a decade of service on the Press Gallery staff. Prior to that, she served the people of my home State of Louisiana for 2\1/2\ decades as Washington correspondent for the Baton Rouge Advocate.

Joan is originally from Greenville, SC, and is a graduate of Winthrop College. She came to Washington in 1971 to work on the press staff of our dear colleague Senator Fritz Hollings.

As her career advanced, she chose to return to journalism, working first as a reporter for the Greenville News, where her father served as editor, and then for another paper from my home state, the Shreveport Journal.

Joan was hired away by the Advocate when she continually beat the Advocate's reporter--who happened to be the son of the publisher--on stories. I came to know and respect Joan during our many hallway meetings that so often occur between Members and the press. I also had the great fortune of getting to know her as a person and as a friend.

In her tenure as the Advocate's congressional correspondent, Joan came to be well respected by members of the Louisiana delegation from both parties. The Members from my State knew her as fair-handed and tough, and most of all, that there was nothing, nothing that could get by her.

Through her work, Joan became an expert on the intricacies of the Senate and the Supreme Court. She took this knowledge with her into her role as a member of the Senate daily press gallery staff. I know her Senate acumen on the institution and its procedure was of great value to the reporters roaming the gallery who relied on her for deep insight about the Chamber they cover.

Joan, who has won reporting awards from the South Carolina and Louisiana press associations, is a longtime member of the elite Gridiron Club of newspaper writers. She was one of the first women to become a member.

I know that one of Joan's biggest interests is dance, something I am told she plans to be very active with in retirement. Long before ``American Idol'' and ``So You Think You Can Dance,'' Joan was an excellent competitive dancer. Her specialty is Shag, a regional dance popular in the Carolinas.

This year, Joan won her first national Shag championship. With more time to practice, I am sure more dance titles are on the way.

For those of us who have been fortunate to work with Joan, it is almost impossible to imagine the Press Gallery without her. But I know I join the entire Senate press corps in wishing Joan the best as she embarks on this new adventure in her life.

Joan, thank you for sharing with this institution and our entire country your knowledge, experience and good heart. All of us are better as a result of your service to the best ideals of our democracy.

Mr. President, under the previous order, I think we were going to debate both amendments and

vote in a few moments. That is what I understood.

Up to 10 minutes.

The Senators have done such a good job managing this bill. I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment and to be paired with this important amendment that the Senators from Kentucky and Oregon have offered. I will explain it briefly because a longer explanation would not be necessary.

This body is very familiar with the reauthorization of the SBIR Program. The reason I believe the chairman and ranking member allowed me to offer this amendment with Senator Snowe is twofold. One, it has a bearing on the Department of Defense in that the Department of Defense is the largest contributor to the SBIR and STTR programs, the two most important research and development programs for small business that the Federal Government runs and operates. The Senators know full well the importance for the Department of Defense and therefore extrapolate correctly the importance of this program for all of our agencies.

We take a small portion of the research and development dollars for all Federal agencies and basically direct it to small business. There are some good reasons for that, which I will put in the Record. As written by one of the advocates supporting the program--and I will put this into the Record--she writes:

The SBIR/STTR funding award process spawns competition

among high-tech businesses. Scientists and engineers propose

their best technological concepts to solve a problem of

national interest. The best of the best of these technical

concepts are selected for funding. Thus, this funding

mechanism assures that the thinking minds continuously work

on producing the most practical solutions to engineering

problems.

Whether it is our soldiers in the field or our scientists at NASA or whether it is our scientists and engineers struggling to understand the oceans or better communication technology, they go to the SBIR and STTR programs and look for some of the cutting edge ideas. We invest in them, and many of those ideas go commercial for the benefit of everyone, taxpayers included.

She goes on to write:

Small businesses develop niche products that are not mass

produced overseas. Thus, it helps our employment situation

[right here at home]. The employees of a high-tech company

are highly educated professionals belonging to a high income

group who contribute substantially to the tax pool and the

economy.

Finally, she says:

Small businesses are job creators. We hear that large

companies are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash, yet

not investing in job creation. Small businesses often operate

on a very thin to no profit margin and hire staff on borrowed

money. . . . This is because growth is the mantra for small

businesses for survival.

If they don't grow, they don't survive. This small business research program is so important. The reason I am here tonight asking my colleagues to vote on this amendment on the Defense bill is that it is relevant. It is also important. We are 5 years late. This program should have been authorized 5 years ago.

I inherited this situation when I became chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. As you know, I have worked diligently with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move this debate forward and to advance the ball. That is what we are going to do tonight. We are, hopefully, going to pass this with more than the 60 votes necessary.

This bill came out of the Small Business Committee on a vote of 17 to 1. It was just broadly bipartisan in its appeal. It is sponsored by my ranking member, Senator Snowe, who has been one of the strongest advocates for small business in the Senate--not just for this year but for many years. She sponsored this bill along with Senators Shaheen, Brown, and Kerry. With Senator McCain and Senator Levin's help, along with the cosponsors of this amendment, I ask my colleagues to vote favorably for it tonight. Again, we are 5 years overdue. It is an important program to get authorized so that the folks operating our programs at all of the departments can have some confidence that the program is going to go on, that they can even do a better job than they have been doing, and we can get these investments out to small businesses that are game changers in America, creating new technology and, most importantly, creating the jobs that America needs right here at home.

I don't see anyone else to speak on the amendment. I think that would probably be all the time that we need. I hope that is a signal that there is no opposition to the amendment. Perhaps we can do a voice vote or have a very strong vote for reauthorizing the small business research program. Again, that is so meritorious and so necessary for the investment of small business in America today.

I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, thank you very much. We will only take a minute. I would like to yield the majority of my time to the ranking member who has worked so hard on this bill.

I would like to thank the cosponsors and thank all of my colleagues for supporting a very balanced extension of the SBIR Program. This is 5 years overdue, and I yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member from the State of Maine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up amendment No. 1115, and I ask to make it pending on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe, and I appreciate the cosponsorship of Senators Shaheen, Brown of Ohio, and Kerry.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

This is an amendment which would reauthorize two of the most important research programs for small businesses of this country.

Madam President, I am so happy to join my colleagues who have done a beautiful job this morning expressing the importance of Pell grants to not only the individuals and their families but to the economic vitality of our Nation. I thank Senator Whitehouse, who has taken up this as a cause. We need a champion for Pell grants.

I am here to help him and to help Senator Tester, who stepped forward to be a leader as well, to say to them that when I go back to my State and check--the Senator from Connecticut knows this--when I go back to my State, what I hear is: Senator, without Pell grants, I could not make this happen. Senator, without Pell grants, my parents could not afford it.

It is not the whole part of tuition, but I think, as Senator Whitehouse has said, it is the keystone, it is the cornerstone, it is the centerpiece, it is the foundation of what our students--and some of our students who are parents who are raising two and three children, holding down one or two jobs--we cannot pull that out from underneath them, I say to the Senator. We just cannot do it.

Secondly, I would say I know we have to find a way to balance our budget. I just left the Go Big Conference. I am one of the ones who is standing in the middle, hoping we can come up with not a $1.2 trillion solution but a $4 trillion solution. This is tough. This is hard. But one of the things that should not be on the chopping block is Pell grants, not because it is a government program--we have to cut back government programs--this is the seed corn. This is the seed corn, I say to the Senator, for our future vitality as a nation. We need to be sending more kids to college, not less. We need to be producing more engineers, not less; more mathematicians. This is our basic grant program.

So I just wanted to come to the floor and join you all. I say to the Senator, I want to personally give you letters from people--children and adults--from my State. I have a letter from a student from Tulane University, a letter from a freshman named Araisa at Loyola University, and a letter from a young man named David, who attends Louisiana Tech University. These letters speak for themselves. I will put them in the Record, but, I say to the Senator, I wish to also actually give them to you because I want you to be able to hear from students from Louisiana as well as Rhode Island, and I tell the Senator that I want to join the Senator in this movement to not throw out the seed corn while we are trimming the hedges.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters I referred to be printed in the Record.

I hope people understand there are differences in some government programs. This is a partnership between the Federal Government and our own individual citizens, a partnership with them and a partnership with the universities, saying: We

believe in you. We believe in the future of our country and this is our investment and it should not be cut.

I am sure the Senator from Connecticut hears this in Connecticut.

Yes.

I would say this program is one of the most effective antiwelfare programs in the country that we fund in Washington. A student from Xavier University wrote in. This student is a first-year student majoring in biology, in premed. This is an African-American Catholic University--the only one in the country and it produces more premed students and more doctors than almost the largest.

Madam President, I know we have just 1 minute. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Madam President is the product of a single-family home and was the only individual employed in her household. So as she is going to school, she is also employed, supporting the whole household, basically keeping them off other government programs that might not be as effective.

The Senator's, leadership is to be commended. I thank him for it.

I am going to submit more of these specific stories from specific students and families for the Record so people understand this is not politics. This is just trying to do what is smart for our country and to do what is right for these young people who are trying so hard.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this material be printed in the Record.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 324, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 302 and that the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any related statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the resolution just approved by unanimous consent is a very important resolution that Senator Grassley and I are proud to support, along with Senator Inhofe and others. It is a resolution recognizing that this Saturday is National Adoption Day.

I am happy to report that on this Saturday, there will be over 3,500 children who will be adopted into permanent families.

This day was started about 10 years ago by some very enterprising organizations, and the Senate and the House of Representatives have been helping to promote the concept of National Adoption Day for many years now, maybe as many as 10. We sure have been working to help highlight this special day. It was started by nonprofit organizations to highlight the fact that we have orphans in the United States.

People don't believe this, but there are over 100,000 children in our foster care system between the ages of 0 and 21, who are in our foster care system, whose parents' rights have been terminated for good reason--maybe terrible or gross abuse or neglect. Those parents are unable or unwilling to raise their biological children. These children need a forever family, a relative to step up, a cousin or an aunt or a grandmother to step up, or they need someone in the community to step up and say: You can be a part of our family.

People don't stop needing families when they are 21 years old. They age out of the foster care system, unfortunately, at 21 despite the good work we have done here to extend that time from 18 to 21. Unfortunately, every year 25,000 children age out of our foster care system, as the Senator from Iowa knows--he has been a phenomenal leader on foster care reform--without ever having been adopted.

When you are 25 or 24 or 23 and you are trying to apply for your first job, it would be nice to have a mother, father, grandmother, or a grandfather to call and ask: How do I dress? What should I say? Does my resume look OK? These children don't have that. When you are engaged, it would be nice to be able to call a parent and say: Can you help with the expense of the wedding or can you be there for me? These children don't have that. That is what National Adoption Day is about, highlighting the fact that there are children in our foster care system--beautiful, strong, intelligent children who need a forever family. We are doing our best to promote adoption for them.

Not only in our system in the United States, but sadly there are around 163 million children around the world living outside of family care. We think that number is conservative because we have reason to believe that even those who do a lot of counting are not really counting all the children in orphanages. The number is probably larger than that.

It sounds overwhelming--and it can be at times--to think about our goal to try to find a home for every one of these children. But just to put in perspective the U.S. numbers, it is 107,000 children. But the good news is that we have 300,000 churches in America alone--not counting synagogues or mosques. Mr. President, you can easily do that math. If just one family out of every three churches adopted one of these children in foster care, we would not have any more orphans in America.

That is why we are promoting this today and this week, National Adoption Month and National Adoption Day. You don't have to be perfect or wealthy; you just have to have a big heart and step up and be willing to add this blessing to your family. So many families have been blessed by adoption. As many people know, our family has been blessed by adoption.

This day is to commemorate National Adoption Day. In fact, I said 3,500, but it is 4,500 children who will be adopted on this day, and 5 will be

adopted in New Orleans, LA. I thank Judge Ernestine Grey and all of the judges for their good work to make that possible. We want to finalize these adoptions in all 50 States.

Saturday, we will celebrate families who adopt and encourage others to adopt children from foster care, build stronger collaborations among local adoption agencies, and, again, raise awareness about the 107,000 children who are waiting. Many of these children, despite our laws that mandate an 18-month wait period, maximum, sometimes wait more than 3 years.

In conclusion, let me just say we need to do more. We can do more. I wish to highlight for the record two wonderful organizations that, in my mind, have been going above and beyond the call of duty.

One is the Dave Thomas Foundation Wendy's Wonderful Kids Program. They are a great example of just one organization that is doing great work to find homes for children who are considered ``unadoptable'' or ``hard-to-place'' simply because they are 7 or 8 or 10 or 12 and not 1 or 2. They are ``too old'' to be adopted. I never thought I would hear the words ``too old'' when referring to a child who is 7, 8, 10, or 12, but that is what people think. They have worked hard--Wendy's Wonderful Kids--and have come up with a new approach, a better approach. They have had extraordinary success in piloting a new child focus recruitment plan and finding 2,500 children permanent homes since 2004. Rita Soronen, executive director of Dave Thomas Foundation, is a leader, and Wendy's Wonderful Kids is a great example.

Let me just put into the Record another organization that has a gallery right here, the National Heart Gallery, which has an exhibit here at the Capitol in the Russell Senate Rotunda. The National Heart Gallery is another very organic, nonprofit, community-based movement. They took beautiful portraits of these children to show their personalities and life. When people are looking at their portraits, they could be pulled in by the beauty and true reflection of the child's personality. So the National Heart Gallery is another wonderful organization, and I want to recognize those two. There are many others.

In conclusion, I thank the Senator from Iowa. He and I chair the foster care caucus together. It has been a pleasure working with him. We look forward to another great year ahead. We have had some success-- actually, a great deal of success--in promoting adoption out of foster care and reforming the foster care system. It is a pleasure to work with Senator Grassley.

I yield the floor to my colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Miles Chiotti, an intern from Senator Grassley's office, have floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak for just a few moments on a very special anniversary that we are celebrating, not just here in Washington but around the country; that is, the 40th anniversary of the Close Up Foundation, familiar to us all.

It is a foundation that was started in 1971. Close Up has worked for four decades to promote responsible and informed participation in the democratic process through Washington-based civic education programs and classroom publications. I had the pleasure myself of participating in one of the first ever Close Up programs back in 1972. So I participated in the second year when the program was in its fledgling stage.

Little did I believe then or know then that I would be a Member of the Senate. But I can remember the tremendous impact that program had on me at that age. It was the first time I had ever visited Washington, DC. I can tell you without the Close Up program, I probably would not have made that trip until many years later. But it made a lasting impression on me and I believe gave me some idea back then of a potential career in public service.

I am very proud to be an alum of this important program, and I am delighted to help celebrate that later tonight at a reception for the 40th anniversary, which is today.

Close Up's mission is to inform, educate, and inspire young people to be active citizens in our democracy. Close Up seeks to create a generation of Americans that exercise their rights and accept the responsibilities of citizenship.

Each year, Close Up serves thousands of high school and middle school students and their teachers on Washington-based government and citizenship education programs. These programs demonstrate that an active citizenry is necessary for the perpetuation of our democracy, and they provide students with the knowledge and skills to participate firsthand--hands on, seeing is believing, being here in Washington, seeing the buildings, experiencing firsthand the ways of the Senate and the House operating, seeing the Supreme Court in action leaves a lasting impression, believe me, on these students--since the 1970s.

I know my colleagues will join me in the pride that 750,000 students and teachers from across the country have participated in Close Up programs. Participating students return to their schools and share with their classrooms, with their student bodies, what they learned and experienced. So while we have had 750,000 students participate, we have directly touched millions of students and teachers and family members, as these students go back and relay very fine experiences.

Students who participate in Close Up Washington travel to our Nation's Capital, usually for about 1 week, joining with their peers from all over the United States, to live and learn together during an intensive, inspiring, and skill-building program. The program is designed to enrich students' knowledge of the basic concepts and institutions of the Federal Government, an important part of our democracy, and to develop a practical understanding of the process of the democratic political system and the role of citizens in this system, which is central, as the Chair knows.

To engage students, expert institutional staff use best practices and methodologies, including role modeling, small group discussions, simulations, and student-driven interaction with key policy experts. In other words, this is not just a tour of Washington, it is not just a tour of the building, it is an interactive, hands-on experience for young middle school and high school students to have a better understanding of how their government operates.

If we think about it, we know they understand by maybe reading the paper and talking to friends how their local government operates. They get a sense of how their State governments operate. Without a real opportunity to visit the Nation's Capital, which many of these students might not have, how will they get a feel for what goes on here, which is very important.

Each year the Close Up Washington program participants engage in 1,000 meetings with Members of Congress and their staffs on Capitol Hill. Our Capital's institutions and historic sites are used as classrooms to help students explore the link between history and contemporary political issues. It brings it alive to them. It makes it real for them. That is why it is so important for us to continue this program.

Students also learn and practice the habits of active, effective citizenship with an intense emphasis on civil discourse. One of the most important and commendable aspects of the Close Up program is its accessibility to economically disadvantaged students. I wish to take a minute to stress this. There are many programs that are sponsored directly or indirectly by the Federal Government that allow students to come to Washington. Then, of course, there are many privately funded activities.

But this is the only Federal program that I know of that reaches out in a special way to students that would be unable to come under any other circumstances, they just could not afford it. Their families cannot afford it, and so it would be out of reach for many of them. That is what is so important about Close Up.

The other important aspect, it is not just for the kids in the class who are 4.0 students. Many students come on academic scholarships or they are chosen because of their academic prowess. This is for the average kid, as well as those who are achieving academically. But it is for the average kid, the kid whom we depend on to be our citizen for the future.

So because of that, it is especially important for us to continue this opportunity. Close Up provides a diverse program experience for its participants and has provided over $100 million in fellowship assistance to students and teachers from underserved communities through public funding and a committed network of corporate and philanthropic donors. So to the Federal money that serves as its base, we get additional support from individuals and from foundations to leverage that resource, to provide an opportunity for kids who would never be able to see with their own eyes the Capitol or the White House, would never be able to walk into the Supreme Court, to actually see it and touch it and to experience it.

If it sparks an interest in one-fourth of the children who come, that would be great. But I think it sparks an interest in almost 100 percent of them in some way. When they leave, they are forever changed in a positive way and can become active participants in this democracy.

So at a time when students throughout the United States show an alarming lack of proficiency in civics, as

demonstrated by the recent results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress testing of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders, Close Up continues to work to engage young people so they understand the political process, find their own voice, and they embrace the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, which is indeed a gift, and they learn to appreciate that gift and to participate more fully in this democracy.

I commend and congratulate Close Up for 40 years of excellent service. I hope it will continue for another 40 years. I am proud to be a strong supporter of the Close Up program. I urge my colleagues, as we have an opportunity, to support the funding for this program, even in these tough budgetary times.

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