Floor Statements

Madam President, for the past 3 weeks President Obama has been racing around the country trying to rally public support for a second stimulus bill and demanding that Congress pass it right away. The President has not been demanding that Congress debate the bill or be allowed to amend the bill. He has demanded in no uncertain terms that we hold a vote on the bill as it is, right away.

A couple weeks ago in Denver, the President said he has the pens all ready, lined up on his desk, ready to sign the bill into law. Just yesterday in Texas, he called on Congress to put the bill up for a vote so the entire country knows exactly where every Member of Congress stands. One of the President's top advisers, David Axelrod, summed up the President's position this way: ``We want them to act now on this package,'' David Axelrod said. ``We're not in negotiations to break up the package. It's not an a la carte menu.''

So yesterday I tested the President's rhetoric. I proposed that we do exactly what he wants and vote right away on this second stimulus bill he has proposed as the supposed solution to our jobs crisis. And the Democrats blocked it. In other words, the President's own party is the only obstacle to having a vote on his so-called jobs bill. Now I understand our Democratic friends want to jettison entire parts of the bill altogether, not to make it more effective at growing jobs, not to grow bipartisan support. No, they want to overhaul the bill to sharpen its political edge. So my suggestion to the White House is that if the President wants to keep traveling around the country demanding a vote on this second stimulus, he focus his criticism on Democrats, not Republicans, because they are the ones who are now standing in the way of an immediate vote on this legislation.

But, of course, the President knew as well as I did that many Democrats in Congress do not like the bill any more than Republicans do. Despite his rhetoric, he knew Republicans were not the only obstacle, which means one thing: The President is not engaged right now in a good-faith effort to spur the economy or create jobs through legislation. He is engaged in a reelection campaign. By the way, the election is not until 14 months from now.

Madam President, 1.7 million Americans have lost jobs since the President signed his first stimulus, and his idea of a solution is to propose another one. Even Democrats know it is a nonstarter, which is why so many of them do not want to have to vote for it. That is what we all witnessed here in the Senate yesterday.

It is time the President put an end to this charade. Stop campaigning for a bill written in a way to guarantee it will not pass and work with us on the kind of job-creating legislation both parties can agree on, things such as the trade bills, rolling back overburdensome regulations, domestic energy production, and tax reform. Republicans are ready to act on any and all of those issues.

Madam President, it has come to my attention that the majority leader has written to the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee asking them to modify the committee-reported National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 before he will allow the Senate to consider that bill.

The White House has made it clear that it objects to certain provisions dealing with the detention of unlawful enemy combatants and captured members of al-Qaida and associated groups. As the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee explained to the Senate, the committee voted in favor of those provisions overwhelmingly.

My request to the majority leader would be to move to the National Defense Authorization Act at the soonest possible moment to allow the Senate to debate and amend the bill. If there are Members on the other side who support the White House's effort to bring unlawful enemy combatants into the United States for purposes of detention and civilian trial, the Senate can debate that matter during consideration of the bill. I know many Members on my side would very much appreciate a debate on the importance of keeping detainees currently held at Guantanamo from returning to the battlefield, especially in places such as Yemen.

Once the Senate completes consideration of the Defense Authorization Act,

it could then move to consideration of the Defense appropriations bill--another measure I assume would be subject to debate and amendment.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great friend of the city of Louisville, a giant in both business and philanthropy who made Kentucky products famous around the globe, and a man whom I was proud to call a friend for more than 30 years. It is with great sadness that I report to my Senate colleagues that Owsley Brown II of Louisville, KY, passed away September 26 at the age of 69. He will be mourned and missed by many, not only by his family and those fortunate enough to know him but also by the countless Louisvillians who did not get to meet the man personally but benefited from his numerous volunteer efforts and initiatives on behalf of our community.

Owsley Brown II was born in 1942, the son of William Lee Lyons Brown and Sally Shallenberger Brown, who herself passed away just a few months ago at the age of 100, as I noted at the time on the Senate floor. After graduating from Yale University and Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, Owsley spent 37 years at Brown Forman, the company his great-grandfather founded, including 12 years as chief executive and 12 years as chairman. He started at Brown Forman in 1961 as a summer employee.

Owsley continued a family legacy that dates back to Brown Forman's founding in 1870. Brown Forman is one of Louisville's most significant companies and a major corporate citizen of our community. It provides almost 1,200 local jobs and still makes whiskey in Jefferson County.

As CEO, Owsley was a visionary in expanding the company's international footprint and modernizing the marketing of its brands. As a result, labels such as Jack Daniel's and Southern Comfort are now recognized worldwide. Under his leadership, Brown Forman stock more than quadrupled in value.

But to describe Owsley as merely a businessman, even a brilliant one, would be to just scrape the surface of the ice cube in a tall glass of Old Forester bourbon with water--Owsley's favorite drink. With his wife Christy, he did much to improve the quality and character of life in Louisville. He led organizations to support art and music, historic preservation and environmental protection. He was a leader in the founding of Actors Theatre of Louisville and a longtime board member. He served on the board of the Speed Art Museum and was active in the Fund for the Arts and River Fields. His family's Owsley Brown Charitable Foundation, of which he was president, gave millions of dollars to local churches and community groups.

Owsley did a lot more than just write checks. He was passionately involved in everything he took part in. As the Actors Theatre board president, he was often seen cleaning the windows or moving props. His deep knowledge of art came in handy on visits to art fairs on behalf of the Speed Art Museum. He could inspire others to donate more of their time, efforts, and resources on behalf of the causes he cared so deeply about just by setting the example.

I first met Owsley more than 30 years ago and saw then that he represented the very best Louisville and the Commonwealth of Kentucky have to offer. Elaine and I send our deepest condolences to his family, including his wife Christy, his three children: Owsley III, Brooke Barzun, and Augusta Holland, and his many other beloved family members and friends.

Madam President, the Louisville Courier-Journal published recently an obituary of Owsley Brown II that only begins to describe a full life well lived. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing:

In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XXII, including germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 671 to S. 1619 or any related substitute amendment to S. 1619.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing:

In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XXII, including germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 672 to S. 1619 or any related substitute amendment to S. 1619.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing:

In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XXII, including germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 680 to S. 1619 or any related substitute amendment to S. 1619.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing:

In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XXII, including germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 703 to S. 1619 or any related substitute amendment to S. 1619.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing:

In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XXII, including germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 720 to S. 1619

or any related substitute amendment to S. 1619.

(The afore mentioned amendments are printed in the Record of October 3, 2011, under ``Text of Amendments.'')

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing:

In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XXII, including germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 735 to S. 1619 or any related substitute amendment to S. 1619.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments'')

Madam President, there is a lot of talk these days about how Washington is broken and how, unless we do something to fix it, the solutions to our most urgent problems will remain out of reach. The fact is, that is not really true. Congress is not frozen in a state of perpetual gridlock, and the now imminent passage of three long- awaited free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea shows it.

For 2\1/2\ years, I and other Republicans have stated as clearly as we could to anyone who would listen that we are willing and eager to work with the Democrats on legislation on which we know both sides agree. Free-trade agreements fall squarely into that category. That is why I have been calling on the President to approve them since his very first day in office. Yet, for reasons I will touch on in a moment, he has actually held back.

It is true that the President had to be convinced of the importance of these agreements. After all, he ran for office promising to renegotiate NAFTA. But once he did come around, his reluctance to act became an emblem for the administration's entire approach to jobs in which results have taken a back seat to ideology. All the President had to do was to follow through on his own pledge--send these trade agreements to Congress--and we would have had an early bipartisan achievement which didn't add a single dime to the deficit and which, by his own estimates, would protect tens of thousands of jobs right here at home. Instead, the President passed over what could have been a job- creating, bipartisan layup and devoted the first weeks of his Presidency to a highly partisan stimulus that has since become a national punch line.

So now, 2\1/2\ years after the stimulus was signed into law, there are 1.7 million fewer jobs in America, and the President is just this week getting around to free-trade agreements we all knew would create jobs, all of which raises a question: Why didn't we do this sooner? I think there are two reasons we didn't do it sooner.

First, the White House was under pressure from unions that don't like free trade. They have been extracting promises from the White House for 2\1/2\ years in exchange for their support. That is one reason.

The second reason the White House didn't send these agreements up sooner is that the political operators over at the White House seem to believe they benefit from the appearance--the appearance--of gridlock. They are over there telling any reporter who will listen that they plan to run against Congress next year. Their communications director said as much to the New York Times 2 weeks ago.

So that is their explicit strategy--to make people believe Congress can't get anything done. How do they make sure of that? Well, they do that by proposing legislation they know the other side won't support even when there is an entire menu of bipartisan proposals the President could choose to pursue instead. How else do we explain the President's standing before the country in January extolling the job-creating potential of these free-trade agreements, asking Congress to pass them as soon as possible, and then sitting on them until yesterday, preventing Congress from taking the vote? How else do we explain the fact that the President spent the past few weeks running around the country demanding that Congress pass a so-called jobs bill right away even as leading members of his own party admit the Democrats wouldn't have the votes to get it through Congress even if it came to the floor? As one senior Democratic aide put it yesterday: ``Nobody is all that excited about the President's jobs bill.''

That is how to create dysfunction--by refusing to acknowledge that we live under a two-party system in this country and that as long as we do, the two parties will have to cooperate to some extent in order to get legislation through Congress. It is the refusal to accept this reality that leads to inaction. The President can govern as though this is the Congress he wants or he can deal with the Congress he has. Along the first path lies gridlock, and along the second lies the kind of legislative progress Americans want. As for Republicans, well, we have been crystal clear from the outset that we prefer the latter route.

So this morning, I reiterate the same plea I have consistently made for the past 2\1/2\ years. My suggestion to the President is that he put aside proposals for which we know there is bipartisan opposition and focus instead on proposals on which we know both sides can agree. Free-trade agreements are a good first step, but they are just that--a first step. If we are going to tackle the enormous challenges we face, we need to come together on much more than that. There is bipartisan agreement, for instance, on the need to increase domestic energy exploration, to reverse job-killing regulations, and to reform the corporate tax code so we are more competitive. If the White House really wants to make a statement, it will work with us on all of these issues. If it doesn't, Americans will only conclude that it would rather have an issue to run on than an impact.

With these trade agreements, we are showing we can work together to create jobs and help the economy, and it is something we should do a lot more of around here.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, for 3 weeks President Obama has been traveling across the country calling on Congress to pass what he calls his jobs bill right away. Here is what he will say in Texas today, if he has not said it already: At least put this jobs bill up for a vote so the entire country knows where every Member of Congress stands. Well, I agree with the President. I think he is entitled to a vote on his jobs bill.

The suggestion that the Senate Republicans are not interested in voting on his jobs bill is not true. I think he is entitled to a vote. It won't surprise anyone to know I do not think it is a good approach, a way that is likely to create jobs, but he has asked for a vote. I think we ought to accommodate the President of the United States on a matter he has been speaking frequently about over the last few weeks and give him his vote.

In fact, they have been calling for this vote with great repetition. His Press Secretary said it on October 3, and David Plouffe, the White House Senior Adviser, said the same thing on September 27. David Axelrod, his top strategist, called for us to have this vote on September 13. The President himself--let me count the number of times: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11--12 times the President of the United States himself, over the last few weeks, has called on us to have this vote. As he put it: I want Congress to pass this jobs bill right away. Well, I hope it will not pass because I do not think it is the right direction for the country to take to begin to deal with the joblessness issue, but I do think the President makes an important point--that he is entitled to a vote.

If I were to be given an opportunity by my good friend the majority leader, I would offer the President's jobs bill, which we think would be more accurately described as stimulus 2, sort of a redo of the approach and the bill we approved back in 2009, after which we have lost 1.7 million jobs. Therefore, I would ask consent to set aside the pending motion and amendments in order to offer the amendment which I have just described and hold in my hand at this moment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I listened carefully to what my good friend the majority leader had to say, and he was talking about other matters debated at other times--the first stimulus bill, on which I think we probably have a basic disagreement. I think it was almost a total failure. He also talked about the debate we had with regard to the continuing resolution, which was finally worked out on a bipartisan basis. But those are things that occurred in the past.

What I am trying to do here today by suggesting that we vote on the President's jobs bill which my good friend the majority leader has previously introduced and I gather by way of introduction supports, that we honor the request of the President of the United States to vote on it now. He has been asking us repeatedly over the last few weeks to vote on it now. If my friend the majority leader is saying he doesn't want to honor the President's request and vote on it now but would like to consider voting on it later, that is something he and I can discuss as we decide how to move forward with Senate business.

But I think the President of the United States, whose policies I, generally speaking, do not support--although I am happy to support his initiatives on trade, be they ever so late--is entitled to know where the Senate stands on his proposal that he has been out talking about over and over in the last few weeks, suggesting that we are unwilling to vote on it.

What I am saying is, we don't agree that it is the right policy, but we are more than willing to vote on it. What I hear my friend the majority leader saying is that even though he supports it, he wants to vote on it some other time. Well, the President has been saying he doesn't want to vote on it some other time, he wants to vote on it now.

If my friend is saying we are not going to vote on it now, I would be happy to talk to him and reach an understanding to vote on it later. But my feeling here is that the least we can do for the President is give him a chance to have a vote on his proposal now, as he has requested on numerous occasions. So I will object to the modification, understanding full well the majority leader and I, off the floor, will have further discussions about when we might move to the President's bill and give him the vote he has been requesting.

Mr. President, if I may elaborate further, we have had a request from the President on multiple occasions to vote on what he calls his jobs bill and to vote on it now. Just to count again, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11--12 times the President has asked us, over the last few weeks, to vote on what he calls his jobs bill now. I don't think the President is saying he wants an extensive debate about it; I think he is saying he wants a vote on it. I wanted to disabuse him of the notion that somehow we are unwilling to vote on his proposal. We are more than happy to vote on it.

I understand why my friend the majority leader may have some reservations about going forward. I have read a number of critiques of this legislation by Democratic Senators, one part of it or another. But even though there is bipartisan opposition to the President's jobs proposal, I think he is entitled to a vote. So I am sorry it appears we will not be able to achieve this vote the President has repetitiously asked for over the last few weeks. I would like to give him that vote, and we will be talking to the majority leader about when we might have an opportunity to vote on his proposal, the President's proposal which the majority leader introduced, which he has been requesting us to vote on.

Mr. President, is my friend propounding a consent agreement or simply asking a question?

Mr. President, let me say to my good friend, I am prepared to vote on the President's proposal today. If the majority leader wants to vote on it some other day, we can talk about that, about how to move forward with it. But the President has been repeatedly asking us to take it up and vote on it now, and I am prepared to do that. With regard to taking it up some other time and voting on it some other day, we will be happy to talk about that off the floor, as we do frequently on every issue we deal with.

Mr. President, I would just add in closing, I think my good friend's problem--and I sympathize with him--is that there is bipartisan opposition to the President's proposal.

The majority leader just confirmed what I was saying, which is that there is bipartisan opposition to this, and we will discuss at what point the majority leader is comfortable with going forward with this proposal. My only reason for offering it today was to respond to the President's request that we vote on it, and we are prepared to do that. If we can't do it today, we will be happy to discuss, as we always do, the agenda of the Senate and when it would be appropriate to vote on it some other time.

Mr. President, I can only quote my good friend the majority leader who repeatedly has said, most recently in early 2007, that in the Senate it has always been the case we need 60 votes. This is my good friend the majority leader when he was the leader of this majority in March of 2007, and he said it repeatedly both when he was in the minority as leader of the minority or leader of the majority, that it requires 60 votes certainly on measures that are controversial.

So it is not at all unusual that the President's proposal of this consequence, that would raise taxes, that would spend $\1/2\ trillion in a second stimulus bill, would have to achieve 60 votes. That is the way virtually all business is done in the Senate, certainly not extraordinarily unusual.

Mr. President, I rise to note final passage last week of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which extends sanctions on the Burmese regime for another year. As in years past, I am joined in this effort by my good friend, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Alongside the two of us are 64 other cosponsors, including Senators McCain, Durbin, and Lieberman. This overwhelming bipartisan support for sanctioning the junta reflects the clear view of the U.S. Senate that the purportedly ``new'' Burmese regime that took office earlier this year so far appears little different from the ``old'' regime.

The casual observer could be excused for thinking that things have changed

dramatically for the better in Burma over the past year. After all, elections were held last fall, a ``new'' regime took office earlier this year, and Aung San Suu Kyi was freed. However, as our experience with Burma has taught us, things there usually require a closer look.

First, the November elections took place without the benefit of international election monitors, and no reputable observers viewed the elections as free or fair. This was in large part because the National League for Democracy--Suu Kyi's party and the winner overwhelmingly of the last free elections in the country in 1990--was effectively banned by the junta and couldn't participate in the election. There were restrictions placed on how other political parties could form and campaign. No criticism of the junta was permitted. And the results were unsurprising: the regime's handpicked candidates won big and the democratic opposition was largely sidelined.

Second, the ``new'' regime appears to be essentially the junta with only the thinnest democratic veneer. The Constitution, which places great power in the hands of the military, cannot be amended without the blessing of the armed forces. Furthermore, those in parliament are limited in how they can criticize the regime.

The only legitimately good news was Suu Kyi's release. Yet the extent of her freedom to travel remains an open question. Moreover, despite her release, nearly 2,000 other political prisoners remain behind bars in Burma; they are no better off than before. Neither are the hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons who are without a home due to the repressive policies of the junta.

That the political situation in Burma remains largely unchanged is also reflected in the defection this summer of two Burmese diplomats. One of them was the Burmese Deputy Chief of Mission here in Washington. He wrote a letter to the Secretary of State requesting political asylum and, according to press reports, in the letter, he stated as follows:

My efforts to improve bilateral ties have been continually

rejected and resulted in my being deemed dangerous by the

government. Because of this, I am also convinced and live in

fear that I will be prosecuted for my actions, efforts, and

beliefs when I return to Naypyidaw after completing my tour

of duty here. The truth is that senior military officials are

consolidating their grip on power and seeking to stamp out

the voices of those seeking democracy, human rights, and

individual liberties.

These words do not come from a Western government or an NGO; they come from a senior Burmese diplomat. His words make clear that the democratic trappings of the ``new'' regime are in many ways just a facade.

Finally, it is worth noting that there remain important security considerations that must be addressed before ending sanctions. The junta's increasingly close bilateral military relationship with North Korea, in particular, is a source of much concern.

I am hopeful that the time will soon come when sanctions against the Burmese government will no longer be needed; that like South Africa in the early 1990s, the people of Burma will be able to free themselves from their own government. However, as evidenced in the Deputy Chief of Mission's letter, the Burmese junta appears to maintain an iron grip on its people, and continues to carry out a foreign policy that is inimical to U.S. interests. The United States must continue to deny this regime the legitimacy it craves by continuing sanctions, and these sanctions must remain in place until true democratic reform comes to the people of Burma.

Mr. President, I am going to very briefly walk us through where we have been and where we are.

After tonight's vote, I think the best path forward is clear. The quickest and surest way to get FEMA all the disaster funds it needs and to put an end to any talk of government shutdown would have been for the Senate to take up and pass the House-passed CR right away.

As we know, our friends on the other side will not agree to that. However, earlier today, as we all know, FEMA indicated it already has the funds it needs for the duration of the current CR--which is, basically, this week--without the billions more in funding Democrats have been calling for.

Quite frankly, I think this is a vindication of what Republicans have been saying all along: Before we spend the taxpayers' money, we should have a real accounting--a real accounting--of what is actually needed.

We also believe that, in these days of huge deficits, we need to prioritize our spending around here.

That said, with this next vote, I think the majority leader has found a path forward, one that will continue to fund the government and which gives FEMA the funds it needs without any added emergency spending for the rest of this current fiscal year--in other words, this week-- emergency funds that FEMA now says it doesn't need.

So tonight we will have had, after the next vote, two votes: One to reject deficit finance disaster spending without necessary spending cuts elsewhere and one to keep the government operational and to provide responsible disaster funding into November.

The CR, should it pass, will be within the top line we agreed to last summer. We have already basically voted on this top line. It will provide FEMA $2.65 billion in funding next fiscal year to continue the recovery efforts. It will not contain any emergency spending for this current fiscal year--the rest of this week. So it will drop both the

emergency spending and the provisions paying for that spending from the House-passed bill.

Again, my preferred path forward would have been to pass the House bill. But since our friends on the other side have rejected that approach, I believe this is a compromise that is a reasonable way to keep the government operational.

So now that we have demonstrated that there aren't enough votes to support more on offset spending, I am going to vote, and would encourage my colleagues to vote, in favor of the clean CR, which is the next vote we are going to have.

In my view, this entire fire drill was completely and totally unnecessary, but I am glad a resolution appears to be at hand.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an accomplished educator and veteran who has dedicated his life to teaching young Kentuckians. Mr. Grover Cleveland ``G.C.'' Garland was involved with the Laurel County School System for over 50 years, where he played a vital role in changing the face of education in Laurel County before finally retiring in 1988.

G.C., 79, graduated from Bush High School in 1948 at the age of 16. At 18, he began teaching at Sasser School, part of the Laurel County School District, after only 2 years of college--his oldest student was 16, barely 2 years younger than him. G.C. spent another year teaching before he joined the U.S. Air Force to serve his country in the Korean war.

G.C. received his basic training in San Antonio, TX, and was transferred around before ending up in Fairbanks, AK. While on leave from his duties G.C. met his wife of 56 years, Joan, at the Ocean Wave Skating Rink in Fariston, KY.

In January 1956, G.C. was discharged from the Air Force and returned to Kentucky, where he returned to school at the University of Kentucky and received a degree in secondary education. He majored in math, history, and political science. After graduation, G.C. and his family returned to Laurel County and he began teaching at Bush. During his 8 years at Bush, G.C. received his master's degree and also assumed the role of part-time guidance counselor.

In 1965, G.C. assumed the position of central office supervisor after Laurel County School Superintendent Hayward Gilliam asked him to help build Laurel County's first million-dollar high school. He spent 13 years as supervisor before being hired as the Laurel County superintendent in 1978. In his 10-year tenure as superintendent, he oversaw several major projects, including the construction of Cold Hill Elementary and junior high schools North and South Laurel Middle Schools.

In 2006 Mr. Garland was honored when the Laurel County school administration named one of the new office buildings after him--the G.C. Garland Administration Building, on the campus of London Elementary School. Furthermore, two of G.C.'s daughters, Jan and Sharon, currently work at Bush Elementary School.

Grover Cleveland ``G.C.'' Garland's lifetime of work and dedication to the education of Kentuckians is truly an inspiration to the people of our great Commonwealth. The Laurel County Sentinel Echo recently published an article highlighting and thanking G.C. for his service to the people of Kentucky. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Reserving the right to object and with the indulgence of my friend the majority leader, let me make some brief remarks about where we are.

For anyone who is confused about what is going on in Congress right now, let me make it easy. In order to keep the government running beyond next week, Congress needs to pass a short-term bill that funds government operations at a spending level to which both parties can agree. The good news is, we have already agreed on a spending level. That has already been done. Last night, the House of Representatives passed a bill that meets that figure we agreed on a couple of months ago.

Here is the holdup. Because of some of the horrible weather we have had over the past several weeks, we have all agreed to add emergency funds we

didn't originally plan in this bill, and Republicans have identified a couple of cuts to make sure we don't make the deficit any bigger than it is already, including an offset Leader Pelosi has used in the past. The rest is from a cut to a loan guarantee program that gave us the Solyndra scandal. I think we can all agree this program should be put on hold until we get more answers, but our friends on the other side don't like the idea. They would rather just add these funds to the deficit. Why? Because, they say, that is the way we have always done things around here. Well, I think there is a lesson we can draw from the debates we have been having here over the last 6 months; that is, the American people won't accept that excuse any longer. The whole ``that is the way we have always done it'' argument is the reason we have a $14 trillion debt right now.

If we pass this bill, FEMA will have the funds they need--have the funds they need--to respond to these emergencies. That is not the issue. What is at issue is whether we are going to add to the debt.

We have a path forward to get disaster funding done right here, today. There is absolutely no reason, in my judgment, to delay funding for disasters until Monday, as my friend the majority leader is now asking us to do. I don't think we ought to delay at all. We just received the amendment a few minutes ago, but we are aware of what it does, and I think it is important for us to try to resolve this issue sooner rather than later.

Let's just walk through the next few days. If we don't have this vote until Monday, that leaves 24 hours or so before the Jewish holidays begin and then several days before the end of the fiscal year. It strikes me that we would be better off going ahead and having this vote now and entering into the discussions that will probably now be delayed until sometime Monday night to see how we can resolve this impasse between the House and Senate.

We would be happy to have the cloture vote on the proposal of my friend the majority leader right now rather than Monday night so we can get a clear sense of where we stand. It is my view that we ought to have the vote today rather than wait until Monday and basically squander the next few days toward getting an agreement we know we have to reach. Therefore, Mr. President--and I thank my friend the majority leader for letting me explain my position--I object.

Reserving the right to object, obviously, here in the Senate we would have a 60-vote threshold, and that is what we will have Monday afternoon. I see no reason why we shouldn't advance that to now so it can be clear whether this measure would pass the Senate. I am pretty confident it will not, and I don't see any purpose to be served by delaying the outcome of that, making the outcome clear on Monday when we could have a clear outcome today; therefore, I object.

Mr. President, we will have that vote on Monday. I object.

Mr. President, I rise to honor a brave member of the U.S. Marine Corps and a fellow Kentuckian who was lost to his family and friends 45 years ago when he was killed in action in Vietnam. A very moving article in tribute to this man, CPL Lorenza Gayles, appeared in the Middlesboro Daily News recently, and I wanted to give this article and this fine young man's story the attention it deserves.

Born in Lynch, KY, on December 28, 1946, as the fourth child of David and Virginia Gayles, Lorenza moved with his family to Middlesboro as a baby and grew up with many friends. He was a good student, was popular with his schoolmates, and known for his sense of humor. His sister Lelia remembers young Lorenza was ``just a charming little boy.''

Lorenza, called ``Rennie'' by his friends, attended the Lincoln School, the only school in Middlesboro for African-American children in those days of segregation. He was a talented athlete who played football, baseball, and had an exceptional gift for basketball. Bill Smith, a longtime friend of the Gayles family, remembers Rennie as ``a solid guy with a good head on his shoulders.'' When segregation in the area ended, Lorenza went to Middlesboro High School, where he graduated in 1964.

Knoxville College offered Rennie a scholarship to play basketball after high school, but Rennie turned them down and chose to enlist with the Marine Corps instead. His older brother David was serving in the U.S. Air Force, and his brother Bobby was already in Vietnam with the Army. Within 2 years Rennie had risen to the rank of corporal and took his duties as a marine very seriously.

Alvin Simpson, a fellow Marine recruit who went through basic training with Rennie and later wrote a memoir about his experiences, said this: ``There was no question who could outfight whom; I knew, he knew, and the entire platoon knew Lorenza was the real deal.''

Corporal Lorenza Gayles was deployed to Vietnam on June 21, 1966. On September 3 of that year, while on reconnaissance patrol, he was on point with his squad when they walked into an ambush. Corporal Gayles was killed instantly. He was 19 years old.

Several weeks later his parents were presented with Corporal Gayles's posthumously awarded Purple Heart Medal. Corporal Gayles is buried in the Lynch Cemetery in Middlesboro.

``When Rennie was killed in action in Vietnam,'' the author of this article writes, Mr. President, ``I remember my mother saying, `that poor little Gayles boy.' This is something that I have carried with me my entire life.''

That is the author of this article speaking. Forty-five years later, this author's memories still affect him, and I think anyone who reads this piece will be affected too. CPL Lorenza Gayles's life may not have been long, but he made an indelible mark on the people who love and remember him.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire article remembering CPL Lorenza Gayles, a proud marine and a brave Kentucky hero who deserves all of our respect, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, over the past week, President Obama has been traveling around the country, trying to set a record for the number of times he can say the words ``pass this bill right away''--the number of times he can say it, actually in a 5-minute speech. Today he will bring his act to a 50-year-old bridge that connects my own State of Kentucky with Ohio. The purpose of this visit is perfectly clear. The President's plan is to go out to this bridge and say that if only lawmakers in Washington would pass his second stimulus bill right away, then bridges such as this one would get fixed and that the only thing standing in the way of repairing them is people like me.

I would like to make a couple points about all this. First, I find it hard to take the President's message all that seriously when his own communications director is over at the White House telling people he is no longer interested in legislative compromise when the leaders of the President's own party in Congress are treating this bill like an afterthought.

We would be more inclined to look at this so-called jobs bill if the President's own staff and members of his own party in Congress started taking it a little more seriously themselves.

Second, I remind the President that the people of Kentucky and Ohio have heard this kind of thing before. Don't forget, the President made the same promises when he was selling his first stimulus. It is a message he brought to Ohio repeatedly. Here is what he said 2 years ago this week at a stop in Warren, OH.

All across Ohio and all across the country, rebuilding our

roads and our bridges . . . that's what the Recovery Act has

been all about.

The Recovery Act is the stimulus bill, the first one. Yet 2\1/2\ years later, what do we have to show for it? Politically connected companies such as Solyndra ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars, provided by the taxpayers, and bridges such as the one the President is attending today still need to be fixed.

It is worth noting, in fact, this one company blew through more taxpayer money than the first stimulus allocated for every road and bridge in the entire State of Kentucky combined.

The President told Ohioans and Kentuckians, the first stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent as well. Yet 2\1/2\ years later unemployment in both States is still above 9 percent.

We have heard these promises before, and I don't think the President should expect anybody to fall for them again. I mean, how many stimulus bills do we have to pass before these bridges get fixed? How many? How many Solyndras do we have to finance? How much money do we have to waste before the President makes good on the promises he has already made? If a bridge needs fixing, by all means let's fix it. But don't tell us we need to pass a $\1/2\ trillion stimulus bill and accept job- killing tax hikes to do it. Don't tell the people of Kentucky they need to finance every turtle tunnel and solar panel company on some bureaucrat's wish list in order to get their bridges fixed. Don't patronize us by implying that if we pass the second stimulus, bridges will get fixed right away. The American people heard the same thing when the administration was selling the first stimulus, only to turn on their television sets 2\1/2\ years later to see the President having a big laugh over the fact that all these shovel-ready projects weren't quite as shovel-ready as they thought they were.

So I suggest, Mr. President, that you think about ways to actually help the people of Kentucky and Ohio, instead of how you can use their roads and bridges as a backdrop for making a political point. If you are truly interested in helping our State, if you truly want to help our State, then come back to Washington and work with Republicans on legislation that will actually do something to revive our economy and create jobs and forget the political theater.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, has the time expired?

After today's vote, the White House has no more excuses. The time has come to send the three pending trade agreements to Congress. We waited for the chance to pass these trade agreements that our economy desperately needs and that even the White House admits will create tens of thousands of jobs.

The White House asks us for a path forward on trade adjustment assistance in exchange for sending these deals up to Congress and we gave it to them. I cannot say I am happy about that. This is a program that I and many Republican Members have serious questions about. Thanks to the leadership of two of our Members, Senator Blunt and Senator Portman, we are where we are today, and the Senate will soon pass TAA without an amendment. Both parties in the Senate have acted in good faith to move this process forward. Now it is the President's turn. No more moving the goalposts; no more excuses. It is time for the administration to demonstrate something that seems to be in short supply on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and that is trust. The Senate today will have acted on trust in passing TAA even before we have received the agreements. The White House has refused to show the same trust in congressional Republicans who have assured them that TAA will move along with the free-trade agreements.

I kept my promise I would allow TAA to move forward in the Senate as long as Republicans had a chance to amend it. It is time for the administration to deliver theirs. It is time for the President to send up these long-pending free-trade agreements without further delay.

I yield the floor.

If my friend would yield on that point.

I think I can probably speak for everybody on this side that if we had a choice between wrapping all of this up sometime tonight, as opposed to coming back tomorrow, I think I am pretty safe in saying we prefer, if it is possible, to complete the job tonight knowing full well we are scheduled not to be here next week. Presumably if we finish the job in a way that is satisfactory to both the House and the Senate, I think our preference would be to grind through and to try to get to the end tonight.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize a very successful and hard-working Kentuckian, Mr. Ira Jackson Cornett. Ira-- known to his friends as ``Red''--celebrated his 95th birthday September 12 and is the proud founder and owner of the internationally known engine rebuilding firm, Cornett Machine Shop. Red is extremely proud of his God-given ability to rebuild all types of engines and claims if you can break it, then he can certainly fix it.

Red was born in London, KY, and moved to Oregon with his family when he was young. He later returned to Somerset where in 1948, he bought land and established Cornett Machine Shop, which specializes in the rebuilding of racing engines from all over the world. Over the years, Red's unique skills have been crucial to his success and helped him gain international recognition. Red once sold an engine to Tiger Woods' caddy and shipped it to New Zealand. Another time, Red had the opportunity to rebuild a V-12 airplane engine like the one flown by Eddie Rickenbacker, a famous American fighter ace in World War I. Currently, Cornett Machine Shop is rebuilding a Jones car that was made in Kansas in 1917--a car he feels very few these days realize were ever made.

Red's Cornett Machine Shop has been a successful and reputable business for decades. Now located on a hilltop on the west side of south U.S. 27, the business is still running full tilt and Red has faith the tradition will continue as he has passed along his talents to his sons, David and Jack. However, until then, Red says he plans to keep on going, as he still has a lot of work to do.

Mr. Ira Jackson ``Red'' Cornett continues to exemplify the character and success that define generation after generation of Kentuckians; I ask unanimous consent that a recent article published in Kentucky's Pulaski County-area Commonwealth Journal that highlights Red's lifelong achievements be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to a proud and grateful Kentucky veteran. Mr. Jim Moore was born and raised in Laurel County, KY, and takes pride in the many changes he has witnessed over the past 80 years. One of 12 children, Jim grew up on a small farm on McWhorter Road and recalls the tears and triumphs of growing up in Laurel County.

Jim's parents, John and Lillie, provided food from the family farm as well as occasionally peddled on Main Street to make ends meet. Jim's parents set up a booth every year at the Laurel County Fair and sold everything from corn stalks and tobacco to canned goods and bakery products.

Jim, along with his siblings, attended school in a one-room schoolhouse where one teacher taught all subjects to 60-70 students at a time. Jim recalls being expelled from the school on his very first day; Jim's teacher wrote a note to his mother after he deliberately disobeyed the teacher's orders to not leave school grounds. Jim returned to school the next year and began first grade.

Jim also remembers the time when one of the first cars appeared in Laurel County. Jim was in school one afternoon when everyone heard the unfamiliar sound of a car coming down the road. Everyone, including the teacher, ran outside to get a glimpse of it as it drove by. To Jim's surprise, the car was in his driveway when he returned home after school--Jim's Uncle Leslie was the proud owner of the vehicle and had driven it all the way from Oregon. Jim reminisces how his family thought that his uncle was rich because he would make multiple trips to get all 16 members of the family to the Reda movie theater and paid 10 cents per person to get everyone in.

Jim eventually joined the U.S. Army and served for several years before being discharged. Once out of the military, Jim drove a freight truck for 35 years before eventually retiring. Like countless other Kentuckians, Jim cherishes his childhood memories and is very fond of his deep roots in our great Commonwealth.

Madam President, the Laurel County Sentinel Echo recently published an article highlighting Mr. Jim Moore's life and memories. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.