Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise as the lead sponsor of the Teachers/First Responders Back to Work Act. I rise in favor of jobs, in favor of teachers, in favor of police officers and firefighters, keeping our communities safe, and the promise we made to first responders after September 11.

We have a choice. I listened to the distinguished Republican leader, but it is interesting how history can be viewed through different lenses. What I failed to hear were the challenges this President and this country inherited from 8 years of policies that led us, in 2008, to the verge not of the great recession we had been referring to but on the verge of a new depression, where the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the former Secretary of the Treasury, under President Bush, came before Members of Congress and said: We have a series of financial institutions on the verge of collapse, and if they collapse, it will create systemic risk to the entire country's economy, and every American will feel the consequences of that.

The result of that 8 years of largely unregulated process created excesses where large entities made decisions that ultimately became the collective responsibility of everybody in this country because a failure to have met those responsibilities would have meant a collapse of this country.

Now, there are those in the Senate who are advocating we go back to those very policies. They talk about stopping each and every regulation. Those regulations ultimately--the lack of it and the lack of enforcement of it is what gave us the excesses we had.

Additionally, we had the two wars abroad, which are totally unpaid for, and fiscal responsibility went out the window there. Tax cuts were totally unpaid for, and fiscal responsibility went out the window there.

The culmination of all of that brought us to January of 2009, when the new President took office and had already inherited millions of jobs that had been lost prior to then. Around 7.5 percent unemployment was the starting point already. In the first quarter of 2009, before he could even do anything--he took the oath of office in late January, swore in a cabinet in February, and sent a plan up in March--another 2 million jobs were lost.

I find it interesting how we forget all of that, at least as a starting point.

We have had 19 months of private sector growth--a little over 2 million jobs. That is good news. But where we have been shedding many jobs is in the very essence of those in the public sector who teach our children, who prepare for the next generation and the competitive future of America, and who protect our communities--police officers, who protect us from crime, and firefighters, who respond when there is an emergency in our communities.

With the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, we can fulfill our duty to educate our children and keep our communities safe or we can gamble our future on the political games we have seen here that disinvest in the future of our children and the safety of our communities.

Almost 300,000 education jobs are on the chopping block this year in this country. At a time when other countries in the world are increasing their educational workforce, we are in the process of decreasing it. New Jersey, my home State, is facing a $10.5 billion shortfall in its 2012 budget. That means more cuts in State and local spending for education, and that hurts our children.

The Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act creates 400,000 education jobs because an investment in our teachers is an investment in our children and in our collective future. We are talking about $30 billion to States and local communities to retain, to hire, to rehire the teachers who have already been separated, to educate tomorrow's entrepreneurs.

In my State of New Jersey, this bill would provide an additional $831 million in funds to support an additional 9,300 education jobs that largely have been lost. New Jersey alone has lost over 6,000 teachers since 2008, slowing our economic recovery and creating a huge knowledge gap in our schools. What does that gap translate into in terms of lost knowledge? What does it mean to a promising young scientist who needs some guidance or a struggling student who needs a little extra help?

I know about the power of a teacher. I know it through my own personal life. I have had several great teachers along the way, but one made a huge difference in my life. I remember her name--Gail Harper, my speech teacher in high school.

You know, I know some of my colleagues won't believe this, but I was among the most introverted persons at that time in my life. I didn't even want to take the speech course, but I was told by my guidance counselors that it was a must. I was a good student, an honor student, but I didn't want to take the speech course because I didn't want to do extemporaneous speaking, read assignments, or get up in front of the class, any of that. I was forced to take it. I would prepare my work, but I would not deliver it.

Finally, Gail Harper, the teacher, said to me--she kept me after class, and she said: Robert, I don't know why you prepare yourself-- your preparation is great, but if you don't deliver this year, you will fail. My mother, who had fled a country to come to freedom, was convinced that I would be the first in my family to go to college. She told me that failure is not an option. When I heard Gail Harper talk about failure, I knew that was not an option. She worked with me to nurture my abilities so that I could break out of that self-imposed shell and really transform my life. In some respects, that I am here today speaking on the Senate floor is because of Gail Harper. I fully understand how teachers can make a huge difference in the life of a young person.

We need to reinvest in teachers and education, in New Jersey's kids and in America's future. We need to get those 6,000 New Jersey teachers back in the classrooms and hire thousands more in every school in every State in America.

Then I turn to the police and firefighters, and I remember living in the New Jersey-New York region on September 11 a little over a decade ago. On that fateful day, it was not the Federal Government that responded to the tragedies and the horror of the World Trade Center; it was local police, local firefighters, local emergency management who were the first responders, who risked their lives and gave their lives on that fateful day.

We made a promise to every community that we would keep communities safe in America in a post-September 11 world, that we would give cops and firefighters what they needed to do their jobs.

Every Member of Congress wanted to take a picture with a police officer or a firefighter. We called them heroes. Now, Republicans want to zero out the COPS Program that puts police officers on the beat. They want to break our promises after September 11, and I think it is time to make good on it with the $5 billion our legislation provides so communities can hire and keep cops and firefighters on the job. They are our first line of defense. We learned that after September 11.

I don't care where one is on the political spectrum or what one believes the role of government is, we can all agree public safety and the security of our communities is government's most fundamental responsibility. We don't need police and firefighters just in the big cities--although they face some of the major challenges--we need them in every town and community.

Over 2,700 communities applied for help to fund 9,000 officers in the last round for a total of $2 billion. But because of the opposition of those on the Republican side to keeping our promise to first responders, only $243 million was available, enough for only 238 of 2,700 communities that applied. That is 9 percent, and it was capped at 25 officers, no matter how big the city or how great the need.

In New Jersey, more than 150 communities applied for funding to keep cops on the job. Only 12 of those 150 were funded. Those 12 communities were only able to hire approximately 78 cops over the course of the next 3 years. Right now, in New Jersey, there are 705 police officers who lost their jobs and can't find law enforcement work, 705 fewer sworn officers on the street, and there are 4,000 fewer officers in New Jersey than there were on December 31, 2009. Public safety is government's No. 1 responsibility, and it is time to deliver on that promise, after September 11, to our communities and our first responders. This legislation includes $5 billion to help first responders stay on the job, close the public safety gap, and keep our communities safe.

Let me conclude by saying, according to a CNN poll released just yesterday afternoon, 75 percent of Americans support providing funding to State and local governments to hire teachers and first responders, including 63 percent of Republicans.

We have a choice. With this legislation, we can fulfill our duty to educate our kids and keep our communities safe or we can gamble our future on political games that don't invest in our children, our economy, and the safety of our communities. I think the choice is clear. I choose educating our kids. I choose protecting our communities. I choose investing in our future and we do this all and pay for it at the same time.

This is the beginning of a fight, and we will be back again and again to force our friends on the other side to make the choice again and again about whose side they are on. I think the choices are pretty clear. The American people have spoken. It is time to get our teachers and our first responders back to work.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I know we will soon be voting on these trade agreements, but I have an issue that I think has immediacy in nature and needs to be brought up now. It is something I have been pursuing for some time.

We have heard FBI evidence of an alleged plot by Iran and its elite Quds Force to assassinate a foreign diplomat on U.S. soil--an extraordinary act of international terrorism that demands, at a minimum, immediate enactment of the most robust sanctions against Iran possible. Were it not for the vigilance of the American intelligence community, the FBI, and all our law enforcement and intelligence agencies working together, this plot could have not only taken the life of Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United States but potentially hundreds of innocent Americans here in Washington.

Think of the Machiavellianism of taking out the Saudi Ambassador at a downtown Washington restaurant and what that would mean in terms of lives lost and the inevitable response it would provoke from the Saudis and from the United States.

In the coming weeks, we will hear the exact details of this incredible plot

and the extent of the involvement of members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. We know the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is at the highest levels of the Iranian Government. That is why I specifically targeted the Revolutionary Guard in the Iran sanctions legislation that is now law. The new legislation I call on my colleagues to support and which now has 76 bipartisan cosponsors will consolidate our original sanctions law.

Iran's actions demand that we move this legislation in the Congress as we simultaneously go to the United Nations, to the international community, and bring to bear whatever pressure we can to convince the Chinese and the Russians to agree to tighter sanctions against Iran.

The fact is--clearly--we must do all we can to end Iran's exportation of terrorism, which has already taken lives around the globe from Lebanon to Argentina, is responsible for attacks on coalition forces in Iraq, our own soldiers in Iraq, and now threatens innocent Americans in our Nation's Capital. I, for one, am not shocked at the revelations we have heard in the last 24 hours. I have known what this regime is capable of, what it intends, and what it will do to achieve its goals. The time has come for this Congress to take the first step in responding to this egregious plot to conduct an assassination in a downtown Washington restaurant.

Since I took Federal office in 1993, then in the House of Representatives, I have raised, for some time, this issue of Iran and its ambitions. I have vociferously and passionately advocated my concern on behalf of the Jewish people in the State of Israel to protect them from the threat of a radical Iranian regime. Now that threat has been directed here, toward American soil, where even American citizens could have died in a plot that defies the imagination in its brashness, boldness, and irrationality.

What specifically do we do? Our first act must be to immediately respond with tougher sanctions that isolate Iran politically and economically--sanctions that will freeze the assets of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps members and allies and shut down the IRGC's sources of revenue, expedite the imposition of sanctions, force companies to decide whether they want to do business with the United States or Iran, and ensure that the United States is an Iranian oil- free zone by banning imports of refined petroleum made with Iranian crude.

To that end, along with Senators Lieberman, Kyl, Gillibrand, Casey, Kirk, and Collins, we have introduced in the Senate the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidation Act of 2011. It is a bill which recognizes that if Iran's principal goal is to acquire weapons of mass destruction and apparently conduct brazen attacks on American soil against international officials, then it must be the policy of the United States to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring the capability to threaten its neighbors and to threaten nations around the world.

The time has come to take that first step and move this legislation.

This legislation closes the remaining loopholes in our sanctions policy. In essence, it is perfecting the sanctions policy we helped pass in the Senate. It insists on a comprehensive diplomatic initiative within the United Nations to qualitatively expand the U.N. Security Council sanctions regime against Iran so Iran cannot find a financial safe harbor or a willing partner anywhere in the world. It imposes immigration restrictions on senior officials from Iran, North Korea and Syria and their associates who seek to enter our country, and it complements those sanctions by reaching out to the Iranian people-- facilitating democracy assistance and developing a comprehensive strategy to promote Internet freedom and access to information inside Iran. These sanctions will help deter the threat Iran poses to U.S. national security because of its suspected nuclear weapons program and will have an impact on Iran's ability, through the Revolutionary Guard and its intelligence arm, to carry out another plot such as the one we have uncovered.

What have we learned in the last 24 hours? We have learned that the Iranian regime is a growing threat not only to its neighbors, not only to the region, but to the world, and potentially to our own homeland. We have learned it is in the interest of the world to apply maximum pressure to the Iranian regime. We have learned we must tighten the screws on the Iranian regime to genuinely advance the cause of stability and peace in the Middle East and, clearly, around the world.

These sanctions are an essential means to that end. We need the ban on trade with Iran to be strong, significant and, as humanly possible, airtight--a ban that does not have Americans subsidizing the very regime that seeks to harm us by purchasing gasoline and diesel that are made of Iranian crude.

Iran's actions have made it a rogue nation that must be dealt with in the strongest terms. We cannot wait for another plot such as this to be uncovered. We cannot take the chance that the next one will not be uncovered. Passing the new sanctions I have proposed with, as I said, 76 of our colleagues here is a start, and we cannot, as a nation, falter. The time to act is now.

I applaud the White House for its quick action this week in imposing new sanctions against the people responsible for the planned attack on the Saudi Ambassador and other targets in Washington. I appreciate the administration's effort to implement and multilateralize sanctions on Iran. This administration has done more to isolate Iran than any prior administration, Republican or Democratic, including their quick response this week designating individuals involved in the plot as well as today's sanction of Iran's Mahan Air.

The news this week, however, has confirmed our worst fears that Iran will not hesitate to advance its interests regardless of the political cost. Iran, given its history of exporting terrorism against coalition forces in Iraq, in places such as Argentina, in Lebanon--and its continued drive to advance its nuclear weapons program, despite being slowed by U.S. and international sanctions--clearly, with the alleged plot uncovered this week, remains undeterred.

It is time to take the next steps--to isolate Iran politically and financially. We must enact sanctions now, to exert the unyielding pressure of the U.S. Government against the Iranian regime, and bring to bear the condemnation of the international community so that the regime fully understands the world will not tolerate such actions if carried out.

These sanctions will prevent us from having to face that situation in the future. They are in our national security interest. They are in the interest of Iran's neighbors, in the interest of the region, and they are in the interest of the security of every nation that wishes to be secure in its borders, safe from the terrorist acts of a rogue state. That is what is at stake. That is why I look forward to a hearing we will be having tomorrow in the Banking Committee on the effect of the sanctions legislation we already have. I believe that hearing will deduce testimony that clearly shows that because of the sanctions legislation we already passed in the Congress, signed by the President that, in fact, we have made a significant dent in Iran's commercial activities. But it has not ceased or desisted from its march to nuclear weaponry. And, obviously, by this latest plot, it has not ceased or desisted from its willingness, even on U.S. soil, to carry out such an assassination. Therefore, the time to act is now.

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

Mr. President, the lack of diversity in our Nation's radio and television media ownership is a far cry from the reality in which we live. Multilingual and multicultural stations are critical to the fabric of communities all across this country, yet their access to the airwaves increasingly has been disappearing.

It is clearly in the best interest of our democracy that media ownership reflects the wealth of this Nation's diversity.

That is why today I pause to applaud Clear Channel and Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, MMTC, for their efforts to expand the diversity in media ownership with their recent partnership. Clear Channel has donated six radio stations to MMTC to use for training purposes and ultimately for sale to minority and women broadcasters.

I am pleased to say that one of these stations is in my home State of New Jersey. Through this program, ``Radio Vision Cristiana,'' a minority broadcast company, has purchased WTOC, based in Newton, NJ, and will use the station to broadcast Hispanic religious programming.

Diversity in media ownership enhances diverse perspectives and better serves the community as a whole. It provides a window into communities, into languages, views, and values that might otherwise be totally suppressed without those outlets.

So I am pleased to acknowledge the partnership between Clear Channel and MMTC to furthering this goal, and I only hope that this deal will encourage others to donate stations so that the American airwaves can one day reflect the diverse makeup of the country's people.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a critical bill for our economic recovery. As communities across the country continue to recover from the economic downturn and devastating falling property values, commercial real estate properties throughout the nation are confronting a severe equity crisis. Just as the crash in the residential real estate market triggered the most severe economic recession in generations, the looming crisis in the commercial real estate market, if left unchecked, could prove to be devastating for our fragile economic recovery.

Studies have shown that more than $1 trillion of commercial real estate loans will be maturing in just the next few years. In fact, by 2018 more than $2.4 trillion dollars of loans held by insurance companies, thrifts, banks, and in commercial mortgage-backed securities will mature. Just as we saw with home mortgages, if these borrowers can't secure other funding options when these payments come due, commercial properties across the country will go into foreclosure, leaving communities with even more vacant storefronts, less jobs, lower tax revenues, and a deeper economic hole to dig themselves out of.

Simply put, the commercial real estate industry has an equity problem too large for domestic investment alone to solve.

Unfortunately, certain tax rules--most of which were drafted 30 years ago, before the current crisis could be foreseen--impose significant penalties on foreign investments in domestic real estate that do not exist on other types of U.S. investments such as corporate stocks and bonds. As a result, overseas investors are discouraged from investing in U.S. real estate at a time when their capital is sorely needed.

These rules, created by the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act, or FIRPTA as it is come to be known, freeze out foreign investment in our real estate markets by imposing an arbitrary withholding tax on the gains realized by overseas capital invested in domestic properties.

Not only is this different treatment questionable as a policy, it is damaging to the economy. At no point have these rules been more damaging to the economy than today. They continue to keep capital out of the U.S. at a time when commercial real estate in all of our communities desperately needs the equity investment.

If these rules are not reformed, it is a real possibility that hundreds of billions of dollars in debt would go into default, triggering massive foreclosures, significant decreases in property values and a severe constriction of capital available for U.S. consumers and businesses--absolutely the last thing this economy needs right now.

That is why today, Senator Enzi and I are introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation that would implement efficient and meaningful reform of these tax rules to encourage more equity investment in U.S. real estate.

These reforms would help save communities all across America from the drag of a wave of commercial real estate foreclosures, help to restart the credit markets, and free up capital to create jobs and economic opportunities for families in every region of the country.

These provisions are modest but effective.

We are not tackling the bigger question of whether or not the existing FIRPTA rules are effective in a 21st century economy. This legislation simply creates targeted opportunities for investment in American real estate while preserving the underlying foreign ownership limits imposed by these tax rules.

We may not agree on a whole lot these days, but today we offer a bipartisan, bicameral solution to help the U.S. economy. I hope all of my colleagues can take the time to look at this bill, understand the positive effects it will have for every State, and we can get this done for the American people.

Mr. President, I rise to announce the introduction of the Livable Communities Act of 2011.

The Livable Communities Act presents an opportunity to save taxpayer dollars, reduce household expenditures, improve partnerships, and help local communities create places of lasting value, where businesses want to invest and families want to live.

It will strengthen rural, suburban, and urban communities by supporting local planning efforts to establish a vision for a desired future and chart a realistic course for getting there. The bill promotes local leadership by encouraging communities to partner strategically to develop solutions that are innovative and reflect their unique character, assets, and needs. It also directs public agencies to use taxpayer dollars more efficiently by coordinating investments in infrastructure, facilities, and services to meet multiple economic, environmental, and community objectives.

This bill is the next important step in transforming the Federal Government into a better partner in community efforts to achieve locally-defined goals, support families when they need it most, and keep the U.S. competitive in the global economy.

Dealing with change can be a real challenge--in our professional and personal lives, with our families, and in our communities. But change is an opportunity to move forward, if only we are open to recognizing it. We can accept and manage change or we can be steam-rolled by it.

I have heard horror stories from across the country about veterans hospitals being built in places that are not accessible by public transportation. I have heard of homebuyers who ``drive to qualify'' for mortgage financing only to rack up transportation costs that break their budgets when gas prices go up. Many of these families are paying 50 percent of their household income on housing and transportation costs alone. It may seem cheaper and easier in the short term to build on a corn field outside of town than it is to re-use land located close to existing transportation, power, and water infrastructure, but it often does not make sense in the long run.

This is why I welcomed the opportunity to work with Chairman Dodd on the Livable Communities Act in 2009 and why I am honored to be the leading sponsor of the updated legislation today. It is the most comprehensive piece of planning legislation that has been proposed in decades. If passed, it will have a transformative impact on the way the federal government supports locally-driven planning processes.

Unfortunately, when many on the other side of the aisle hear the word ``livable,'' they cringe. They think of top-down mandates from the Federal Government. What they fail to understand is that the beauty of what is ``livable'' is defined by the communities themselves to reflect the unique character, assets, and needs of that community.

The fact is the private sector wants to be located in communities that have dependable transportation systems to get their goods to market and their workers to their jobs. Businesses want to attract and retain workers and ensure that their enterprise will be viable in the long run. Private enterprise has spearheaded some of the most notable past and current planning efforts and the Federal Government should be a supportive, versatile partner in this work.

I invited bipartisan cooperation on the bill numerous times and although some offices quietly praise the good work going on in their communities, political pressure prevents them from doing so publicly. We remain optimistic that supporting community efforts to proactively plan for the future and save money by coordinating capital investment strategies are values we all support, regardless of the terminology we use to describe them.

The Livable Communities Act of 2011 is a streamlined approach that would keep the good work at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development going. Its intent is to find better ways to coordinate interconnected but often silo-ed programs and policies that impact housing, transportation, and the environment and affect the way we live our daily lives.

The bill would formally authorize the existing HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, to work with the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency, to provide technical assistance and capacity support to communities working on integrated planning for housing, transportation, water and sewer infrastructure needs. These tools help communities develop projects that support job creation, leverage significant private sector investment, and bolster long-term economic resilience by creating places where businesses want to invest. Increased coordination at the regional and Federal level will cut red tape and save communities money as they plan for their future needs. The bill also directs the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities to provide best practices and technical assistance to ensure that communities of all sizes learn from each other's success.

The Livable Communities Act of 2011 also directs HUD to coordinate with DOT and EPA to identify and eliminate Federal barriers to sustainable development. The Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities will coordinate Federal sustainable development policies and research agendas to facilitate Federal collaboration by streamlining and reconciling program requirements and policies. It will also administer grant programs to support local planning for long-term housing and infrastructure needs. This will enable communities to foster economic development in an efficient and inclusive way. Selection criteria and eligible activities would be flexible to allow all sizes and types of communities to plan for a more sustainable future, including job creation; revitalizing existing small town Main Streets; reducing traffic congestion and pollution; protecting farmland, working landscapes, and green space; addressing vacant, abandoned, and foreclosed properties; and building more affordable and healthy housing.

The bill would also spur private investment in transit-oriented development, TOD, by helping communities overcome initial financing hurdles that so often lock up private investment and prevent desired transit-oriented, mixed-use development. Locally directed TOD provides numerous economic benefits, including increased property values and business activity as well as congestion reduction. TOD also promotes economic competitiveness by efficiently connecting our work force to educational and employment opportunities. This creates avenues for business growth in communities across the country and keeps America competitive in the global economy.

I know how important planning is to our communities. My home State of New Jersey is the most densely populated in the country, so we know the value of good community planning. Over the years we have learned some important lessons about how vital it is to make sure that our development projects are functional, serviceable, and livable at the human scale, places where people feel safe, where they want to spend time, relax as well as work--places where they can live, shop, and be connected to their surroundings. If this economic crisis is teaching us anything, it is to live within our means,

think creatively about opportunities to leverage resources, and to invest now for future prosperity.

Good planning means saving $122 billion on water, sewer, and roads over the next 25 years. It means protecting housing values by putting housing near transit. As President Obama remarked over two years ago, our days of building mindless sprawl are over. We simply cannot afford it. Now is the time to reinvest in our communities and infrastructure. The HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities is doing this in a very active way. There are many members of Congress who support this important work, but we need to convince more of them that we are right, and that--for the good of their communities--they should be on our side.

The fact is, we all have a role to play. The environment is substantially different today than it was ten years ago--twenty years ago when I was trying to get people on board with the idea reactivating an existing right of way to serve as the Hudson Bergen Light Rail when I was Mayor of Union City.

Today, communities are catching on. Innovation is happening. The Federal Government can be an important partner in helping communities achieve their goals. I can tell you that in Jersey City, ``livable'' means the transforming 111 acres of under-utilized industrial land into a mixed use, walkable community along the Hudson Bergen Light Rail. A quiet revolution is underway and communities like Jersey City are leading by example. It's time for the Federal Government to catch up.

It is our job--together--all of us--to provide the information, tools, and encouragement these communities need, that Federal, State, and local agencies and elected officials need--to achieve the aspirations that they set for themselves.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a critical bill for our economic recovery. As communities across the country continue to recover from the economic downturn and devastating falling property values, commercial real estate properties throughout the nation are confronting a severe equity crisis. Just as the crash in the residential real estate market triggered the most severe economic recession in generations, the looming crisis in the commercial real estate market, if left unchecked, could prove to be devastating for our fragile economic recovery.

Studies have shown that more than $1 trillion of commercial real estate loans will be maturing in just the next few years. In fact, by 2018 more than $2.4 trillion dollars of loans held by insurance companies, thrifts, banks, and in commercial mortgage-backed securities will mature. Just as we saw with home mortgages, if these borrowers can't secure other funding options when these payments come due, commercial properties across the country will go into foreclosure, leaving communities with even more vacant storefronts, less jobs, lower tax revenues, and a deeper economic hole to dig themselves out of.

Simply put, the commercial real estate industry has an equity problem too large for domestic investment alone to solve.

Unfortunately, certain tax rules--most of which were drafted 30 years ago, before the current crisis could be foreseen--impose significant penalties on foreign investments in domestic real estate that do not exist on other types of U.S. investments such as corporate stocks and bonds. As a result, overseas investors are discouraged from investing in U.S. real estate at a time when their capital is sorely needed.

These rules, created by the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act, or FIRPTA as it is come to be known, freeze out foreign investment in our real estate markets by imposing an arbitrary withholding tax on the gains realized by overseas capital invested in domestic properties.

Not only is this different treatment questionable as a policy, it is damaging to the economy. At no point have these rules been more damaging to the economy than today. They continue to keep capital out of the U.S. at a time when commercial real estate in all of our communities desperately needs the equity investment.

If these rules are not reformed, it is a real possibility that hundreds of billions of dollars in debt would go into default, triggering massive foreclosures, significant decreases in property values and a severe constriction of capital available for U.S. consumers and businesses--absolutely the last thing this economy needs right now.

That is why today, Senator Enzi and I are introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation that would implement efficient and meaningful reform of these tax rules to encourage more equity investment in U.S. real estate.

These reforms would help save communities all across America from the drag of a wave of commercial real estate foreclosures, help to restart the credit markets, and free up capital to create jobs and economic opportunities for families in every region of the country.

These provisions are modest but effective.

We are not tackling the bigger question of whether or not the existing FIRPTA rules are effective in a 21st century economy. This legislation simply creates targeted opportunities for investment in American real estate while preserving the underlying foreign ownership limits imposed by these tax rules.

We may not agree on a whole lot these days, but today we offer a bipartisan, bicameral solution to help the U.S. economy. I hope all of my colleagues can take the time to look at this bill, understand the positive effects it will have for every State, and we can get this done for the American people.

Mr. President, I rise to announce the introduction of the Livable Communities Act of 2011.

The Livable Communities Act presents an opportunity to save taxpayer dollars, reduce household expenditures, improve partnerships, and help local communities create places of lasting value, where businesses want to invest and families want to live.

It will strengthen rural, suburban, and urban communities by supporting local planning efforts to establish a vision for a desired future and chart a realistic course for getting there. The bill promotes local leadership by encouraging communities to partner strategically to develop solutions that are innovative and reflect their unique character, assets, and needs. It also directs public agencies to use taxpayer dollars more efficiently by coordinating investments in infrastructure, facilities, and services to meet multiple economic, environmental, and community objectives.

This bill is the next important step in transforming the Federal Government into a better partner in community efforts to achieve locally-defined goals, support families when they need it most, and keep the U.S. competitive in the global economy.

Dealing with change can be a real challenge--in our professional and personal lives, with our families, and in our communities. But change is an opportunity to move forward, if only we are open to recognizing it. We can accept and manage change or we can be steam-rolled by it.

I have heard horror stories from across the country about veterans hospitals being built in places that are not accessible by public transportation. I have heard of homebuyers who ``drive to qualify'' for mortgage financing only to rack up transportation costs that break their budgets when gas prices go up. Many of these families are paying 50 percent of their household income on housing and transportation costs alone. It may seem cheaper and easier in the short term to build on a corn field outside of town than it is to re-use land located close to existing transportation, power, and water infrastructure, but it often does not make sense in the long run.

This is why I welcomed the opportunity to work with Chairman Dodd on the Livable Communities Act in 2009 and why I am honored to be the leading sponsor of the updated legislation today. It is the most comprehensive piece of planning legislation that has been proposed in decades. If passed, it will have a transformative impact on the way the federal government supports locally-driven planning processes.

Unfortunately, when many on the other side of the aisle hear the word ``livable,'' they cringe. They think of top-down mandates from the Federal Government. What they fail to understand is that the beauty of what is ``livable'' is defined by the communities themselves to reflect the unique character, assets, and needs of that community.

The fact is the private sector wants to be located in communities that have dependable transportation systems to get their goods to market and their workers to their jobs. Businesses want to attract and retain workers and ensure that their enterprise will be viable in the long run. Private enterprise has spearheaded some of the most notable past and current planning efforts and the Federal Government should be a supportive, versatile partner in this work.

I invited bipartisan cooperation on the bill numerous times and although some offices quietly praise the good work going on in their communities, political pressure prevents them from doing so publicly. We remain optimistic that supporting community efforts to proactively plan for the future and save money by coordinating capital investment strategies are values we all support, regardless of the terminology we use to describe them.

The Livable Communities Act of 2011 is a streamlined approach that would keep the good work at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development going. Its intent is to find better ways to coordinate interconnected but often silo-ed programs and policies that impact housing, transportation, and the environment and affect the way we live our daily lives.

The bill would formally authorize the existing HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, to work with the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency, to provide technical assistance and capacity support to communities working on integrated planning for housing, transportation, water and sewer infrastructure needs. These tools help communities develop projects that support job creation, leverage significant private sector investment, and bolster long-term economic resilience by creating places where businesses want to invest. Increased coordination at the regional and Federal level will cut red tape and save communities money as they plan for their future needs. The bill also directs the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities to provide best practices and technical assistance to ensure that communities of all sizes learn from each other's success.

The Livable Communities Act of 2011 also directs HUD to coordinate with DOT and EPA to identify and eliminate Federal barriers to sustainable development. The Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities will coordinate Federal sustainable development policies and research agendas to facilitate Federal collaboration by streamlining and reconciling program requirements and policies. It will also administer grant programs to support local planning for long-term housing and infrastructure needs. This will enable communities to foster economic development in an efficient and inclusive way. Selection criteria and eligible activities would be flexible to allow all sizes and types of communities to plan for a more sustainable future, including job creation; revitalizing existing small town Main Streets; reducing traffic congestion and pollution; protecting farmland, working landscapes, and green space; addressing vacant, abandoned, and foreclosed properties; and building more affordable and healthy housing.

The bill would also spur private investment in transit-oriented development, TOD, by helping communities overcome initial financing hurdles that so often lock up private investment and prevent desired transit-oriented, mixed-use development. Locally directed TOD provides numerous economic benefits, including increased property values and business activity as well as congestion reduction. TOD also promotes economic competitiveness by efficiently connecting our work force to educational and employment opportunities. This creates avenues for business growth in communities across the country and keeps America competitive in the global economy.

I know how important planning is to our communities. My home State of New Jersey is the most densely populated in the country, so we know the value of good community planning. Over the years we have learned some important lessons about how vital it is to make sure that our development projects are functional, serviceable, and livable at the human scale, places where people feel safe, where they want to spend time, relax as well as work--places where they can live, shop, and be connected to their surroundings. If this economic crisis is teaching us anything, it is to live within our means,

think creatively about opportunities to leverage resources, and to invest now for future prosperity.

Good planning means saving $122 billion on water, sewer, and roads over the next 25 years. It means protecting housing values by putting housing near transit. As President Obama remarked over two years ago, our days of building mindless sprawl are over. We simply cannot afford it. Now is the time to reinvest in our communities and infrastructure. The HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities is doing this in a very active way. There are many members of Congress who support this important work, but we need to convince more of them that we are right, and that--for the good of their communities--they should be on our side.

The fact is, we all have a role to play. The environment is substantially different today than it was ten years ago--twenty years ago when I was trying to get people on board with the idea reactivating an existing right of way to serve as the Hudson Bergen Light Rail when I was Mayor of Union City.

Today, communities are catching on. Innovation is happening. The Federal Government can be an important partner in helping communities achieve their goals. I can tell you that in Jersey City, ``livable'' means the transforming 111 acres of under-utilized industrial land into a mixed use, walkable community along the Hudson Bergen Light Rail. A quiet revolution is underway and communities like Jersey City are leading by example. It's time for the Federal Government to catch up.

It is our job--together--all of us--to provide the information, tools, and encouragement these communities need, that Federal, State, and local agencies and elected officials need--to achieve the aspirations that they set for themselves.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to pursue a unanimous consent request on something that is critical to families in my home State of New Jersey, which has the highest rate of autism, but is also critical to families across the country who have a loved one who faces--in the spectrum of autism and other developmental issues-- the need to get the help, so their child, their loved one, can fulfill their God-given capabilities.

Last Tuesday morning, a full week ago from today, I sent this bill before the Senate for unanimous consent, and that unanimous consent was cleared on the Democratic side, but it has not been cleared on the Republican side,

which has prevented this bill from passing.

This legislation was reported out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on September 7 without amendment and with unanimous support, Republicans and Democrats together. This result, the result of a bipartisan effort with Senator Enzi, who is the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, is vital to ensuring that the programs created under the landmark Combating Autism Act of 2006 continue.

That bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush after passing the Senate on a unanimous consent. This long history of bipartisan support only adds to my confusion as to why there are colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are currently preventing the bill from passing.

This legislation has unanimous support from Democrats and strong bipartisan support throughout the Senate, including nine Republican cosponsors.

Without Senate approval, the Combating Autism Act will sunset at the end of next week, leaving countless families across our Nation without the support they need in caring for their children with autism.

This bill provides an additional 3 years of guarantees simply in the context of an authorization. Obviously, we would have to go through the appropriations process and there would have to be debate and it would be voted on the floor, but that authorization for 3 years at the fiscal year 2011 appropriated levels for the programs for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration is vital to continuing our efforts on diagnosing autism spectrum disorder, advancing behavioral therapies to improve social abilities with those with autism, providing families with education and support services to better understand autism, and to coordinating Federal efforts on researching autism.

I have worked closely with Senator Enzi, who has been a cochampion in regard to this legislation and addressing all concerns. Since it cleared the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee with full bipartisan and unanimous support, I thought we had succeeded in addressing those concerns. I have not been approached or heard a single objection from any Republican as to why they might hold this bill, and I have been open in my willingness to work with the other side in addressing their policy concerns. Having not heard a single objection to the merits of this legislation--which, by the way, is an exact replica of what is being offered by the Republican majority in the House--I have to assume this is for reasons other than policy.

We have had a week to bring this forward. It has caused incredible uncertainty and unnecessary worry for the parents of children with autism as they wait anxiously to learn if the government is going to continue to reauthorize the very essence of the programs that have helped their children be able to fulfill their God-given potential to the maximum ability they can. I have met family after family who tell me this legislation has made an enormous difference in their lives. So I don't understand any reason, considering all the work that has been done, considering the bipartisan support, considering the House Republican majority is offering the same legislation, why we have not been able to pursue this.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 163, S. 1094, the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I object.

First of all, I appreciate my colleague's offer and certainly we will take him up on it--to have a discussion to see if we can come to a common understanding because the issue is far more important than anyone's ideological views. I look forward to working with him and others who are concerned.

Let me say, however, there are some inconsistencies. If you do not believe there should be a disease-specific reauthorization, then the CR does exactly that. It will be for a more limited time, but it will, in fact, reauthorize this bill but only to November 18. So whether that debate is about reauthorizing a disease-specific allocation, which is what I was trying to accomplish, or whether in the CR, I assume it will be the thinking of my colleagues to object to the CR on the basis it has a disease-specific reauthorization for a much smaller period of time, until November 18. I am not quite sure how that logic follows at the end of the day.

Secondly, I think it is rather cruel to use an analogy that talks about loan guarantees to some energy entity and talking about autism and families. When I hear the word ``lobby,'' that, of course, creates a pejorative description. What is the lobby here? The lobby here is parents--American citizens, husbands and wives, taxpayers who advocate for their children before their representatives. I thought, in a representative democracy, citizens have the right to go to their elected representatives and advocate for a point of view--even if, admittedly, that point of view is on behalf of the welfare of their child.

So I have a problem when I hear, in this context, the word ``lobby,'' as if it is a negative when a universe of parents in our country who pay taxes are simply trying to accomplish getting their government's attention on a disease that afflicts their children and their ability to function in this society to the maximum potential their God-given abilities give them. I don't care about listening to a lobby. The last time I checked, this is what democracy is all about.

Finally, I would simply say there is no guarantee--I know my colleague suggested there is a guarantee--that research into autism will continue. There is no guarantee of that. There is no guarantee of that. The reason why I objected to the other unanimous consent by my colleague from Oklahoma is because, in fact, we have a set of circumstances, if we read that unanimous consent request, where there would be a diminution of funds at the end of the day. So we either believe in a disease-specific reauthorization, which to some degree would be allowed, but then we take away all the funds.

The whole reason this legislation came to being was to coordinate the very efforts of the Federal Government together to, in essence, meet the challenge of autism.

Even when we listen to debate on disease-specific legislation and the opposition to disease-specific legislation, I would emphasize that while the name would suggest this is only about autism, this improves services for children with many different developmental disorders and conditions--from autism, yes, but Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, intellectual disabilities, and epilepsy.

So it is a program that involves a number of efforts, broadly based, to prevent and detect and improve the health infrastructure for all children who might face any of these developmental disabilities, not just autism.

Every year this program trains thousands of professionals to better care for individuals with a broad range of developmental disabilities, including but not limited to autism spectrum disorders. Given the long waiting lists that families often endure to receive diagnostic and treatment services, these programs are essential in addressing an urgent national health need.

So, Mr. President, I don't quite understand the opposition. It boggles my mind. They are against disease-specific legislation even though this has passed by voice vote in the past? Even though this passed unanimously out of the committee? Even though a disease-specific provision will be in the CR, which I assume they would oppose if they don't want legislation to move forward? Then they tell families they are lobbyists, and they have no right to lobby, that we shouldn't listen to their voices? Then they say there will be--don't worry, there will be money for research, when there is no guarantee? That is cruel, in my view, and there is no reason for it.

I would only hope we can have a change of heart so we can have families who have an incredible challenge and who love their children and want to do everything they can to help them fulfill the maximum of their potential to be able to do so. That is what we have done for several years now under this legislation.

My God, if we can't get things like this passed, I don't know where we are headed in the Senate. But I hope for a better day, and I am going to continue and insist until we achieve this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote No. 139, a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consider H.R. 2832, a bill to extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted yea to the motion to invoke cloture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andi Lipstein Fristedt, a detailee to the Senate HELP Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of Senate floor business today.

Mr. President, I want to address a very important issue that is currently before the Senate. This past Tuesday I submitted a bill to the Senate--the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act, S. 1094-- for a unanimous consent agreement. Since then, the Republicans have blocked this bi-partisan bill from passing. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee reported this legislation unanimously on September 7, 2011.

My legislation is a simple 3-year extension of the Combating Autism Act, CAA, of 2006. This original legislation was passed out of the Senate by unanimous consent on December 7, 2006, and signed into law shortly thereafter. This landmark legislation included provisions relating to the diagnosis and treatment of persons with autism spectrum disorders, ASD, and expanded and intensified biomedical research on autism, including a focus on possible environmental causes. Additionally, it provides for detailed surveillance by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, of the increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders, ASD. The Act also reconstitutes the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee to advise the Secretary, coordinate the federal response to autism and develop the annual strategic plan for autism research.

I am greatly disappointed that my colleagues on the other side are playing politics with this bill. On September 30, just a couple of short weeks from now, the programs authorized under the CAA sunset, and with them the myriad programs which have helped families better understand, treat and live with ASD. Now is not the time for politics. Now is the time to reauthorize the Combating Autism Act so families living with ASD can continue receiving the care and support they deserve.

Mr. President, I appreciate the passion of the Senator from Louisiana and her personal experience from Louisiana on the consequences of disaster. She speaks from firsthand knowledge and speaks for all of us in this respect.

I rise today because we as a nation have always come together to help each other in times of crisis without question, without politics. In my 20 years between the House and the Senate, I never questioned, in the midst of a disaster somewhere in the country--which, fortunately, for the most part has not been New Jersey--casting my vote to support those fellow Americans who found themselves in urgent need because of natural disasters having nothing to do with any control they had whatsoever.

This is not the time to politicize disaster aid. It is not who we are or what we expect this Nation to be. Our goal when disaster strikes is to unleash the full force of the Federal Government to help families in trouble and communities in ruin, not to score some political points by slowing relief and calling it responsible fiscal policy. In the wake of a storm, when the floodwaters rise, when the winds blow, when the storm surge rushes in, we should not be rallying our political base; we should be rallying the full force of emergency responders to help.

In the last few weeks, the east coast has suffered an earthquake, a hurricane, and some of the worst flooding my State has seen in years--a 100-year flood. I received a letter from a constituent in Moors Landing, in Monmouth County, who wrote:

Dear Senator Menendez,

I live in Moors Landing, a development of homes in Howell

Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey. Our community is in

great need of assistance. One section of our community was

devastated by flooding from an overflow of the Manasquan

inlet on August 20 and 21. Homes and property were destroyed,

and the families and lives of those homeowners were terribly

disrupted.

Then, after the first calamity, Hurricane Irene brought

further destruction to this

same section of our community. But in addition to that

repeated damage, Irene brought damage to a second section of

our community.

Hurricane Irene, in addition to the added homes and

property damage, forced many of our residents to be evacuated

in order to avoid drowning in the rushing flood waters. This

second catastrophe added to the misery and hardship suffered

from our affected homeowners who lost their furniture, their

carpets and flooring and everything in the first floor of

their homes, their furnaces and air conditioning units, and

all of them have to tear down their water damaged walls to

avoid mold and dry out their homes.

All of this devastation and loss comes at a time when our

people already are finding it difficult to make ends meet.

These people have no money to take on the added costs of

repair; and now there is no one who would even buy their

homes. So they are stuck with a true nightmare scenario--no

money to fix things and no way to sell the homes. We need

your help. I understand Federal funding from FEMA is

available, and we urgently need your assistance in securing

these funds for our neighbors so that these people can move

on with their lives.

That constituent, a fellow American, deserves to know that her government will be there to help, that relief is on the way, not held up in Congress to satisfy some ideology or political agenda.

When disaster strikes, Americans come together. We do not hesitate. We do not ask why. We do not wait. We rush to our neighbors and do all we can to help them rebuild. After the damage and flooding Irene caused, we came together as we always do--as a community, each of us working together to help others.

I had the opportunity to tour the flooded areas of New Jersey with the Army Corps of Engineers. Then we went to Patterson. This is a picture of Patterson, NJ, and these responders are on a boat, with the President and Governor Christie of my State, to assess that damage.

After 5 days of flooding, there were still those who were homeless, trying to put the pieces of their lives back together. As we flew over the area with the President that day, we could see mud lines on homes indicating how high the floodwaters had reached. Then, tragically, we saw home after home where everything, up and down some streets--all the personal belongings of residents had been put out as trash, cherished pieces of their lives lost, ruined.

Paterson was particularly hard hit. Ironically, the river that once fueled the economy of Paterson washed out bridges, dams along the river were badly damaged, and power was knocked out for days. With the latest rains, flooding again took place even after Hurricane Irene. So the water may have receded, but the consequences have not.

We have been very pleased with the Federal response so far, a response that should have nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with political budget debates in Washington, and everything to do with the real needs of families in Paterson, in Lincoln Park, in Wayne, and in so many other places in New Jersey and across this country. Some of these people have to start over, start their lives over.

FEMA, along with other Federal, State, and local officials, needs the resources necessary not only to move in as quickly as possible to deal with the crisis but the resources necessary to deal with the aftermath--politics notwithstanding--because when one community is in trouble, we are all in trouble, and we pull together.

Frankly, I cannot believe there are those in this Chamber and in the other body who see this as a political opportunity, those who would focus on the politics of relief even in the face of families who have watched their lives wash away, their property in ruins, and their communities devastated.

New Jersey suffered severe damages and left families, already struggling, with another challenge. It is up to all of us to help them. Irene was a powerful storm, but what we have learned is that there is nothing more powerful than what unites us as a community. It is in times such as these, when families and small businesses are trying to recover, that we appreciate the role of professional, well-equipped, well-trained local, State, and Federal boots on the ground.

In my view, one of the most legitimate and nondebatable roles of government--clearly, I have heard many of my colleagues refer to this in a different context--is the security of our people. If you are homeless as a result of a disaster, you have a security problem. In my view, one of the most legitimate and nondebatable roles of government is to provide a helping hand to a citizen when there is nowhere else to turn. Yes, we have to do all we can to keep our economy moving, create jobs, and reduce the deficit. We have to make cuts where we can. But in the face of disasters, we cannot say no to families who have lost everything. We cannot say no when floodwaters are rising, homes are lost, possessions are piled in the streets, and families are picking through the mud to put whatever pieces of their lives they can find together once again. We are not a nation that ties helping them recover to the politics of the moment. We are not a nation that leaves our neighbors alone in the time of tragedy. We do not stand down in times of crisis, we step up.

We in New Jersey are grateful to the President for coming to Paterson and to Wayne and for the rapid and effective response of FEMA and State and local officials, after Irene, to families who have lost so much. But any attempt to slow relief to these families is, in my view and in the view of Governor Christie of my State--any attempt to politicize this disaster to advance an ideology at the expense of all we stand for as a nation is not acceptable.

The President said we will do what is necessary to respond. Senator Lautenberg and I took the same view, and Governor Christie took the same view. We don't want to get into the politics of budget debates or whether this should be offset later on. That is a question for later on. The question right now for people who find themselves without a home so we can knock on that door is, Is the Federal Government--the one I pay my taxes to, the one I swear an oath of allegiance to every day--is it going to respond to me now?

I did not question the need to respond to tornadoes in Joplin, floods in the Dakotas, or the terrible consequences of the hurricane in Louisiana or any other place in this country, and I do not expect that my colleagues now will say no to their fellow Americans who need help now in New Jersey and in other States along the east coast. It is simply not the American way to not support the funds necessary and deal with the challenges these families have now.

Let's keep our eye on the ball. There are families in real need, really struggling in ways we cannot imagine. We have a real ability to put politics aside and do what is right. We will have that opportunity very shortly. Let's do what is right. Let's get this money to the Federal agencies that can help turn around these people's lives. That is the American way. That is the vote we will have later today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to talk about the deal the Senate will vote on sometime later tonight or tomorrow. Before I do, I want to say to my distinguished colleague from North Dakota, the chairman of the Budget Committee, as always, what an exceptional job he has done in laying out fact from fiction, the realities of the choices before us. I only hope that the revenue possibilities he clearly expressed exist as part of an equation to a solution could be invoked, but I am concerned based upon what the other side says.

We have a deal before us that is a result of a manufactured crisis. The debt limit has historically been raised as a matter of course by both Republicans and Democrats, both sides, without conditions. Ronald Reagan did it 18 times without conditions. George W. Bush did it 7 times without conditions. But, no, not this time.

For days, for weeks, this Congress has been held hostage by a radical few--a band of tea party tyrants--who believe their opinions, their values, their view of the world, their vision of government must be America's vision. It is not. In their world, there is no room for reasonable compromise, there is no room for fair and balanced budget approaches, the kinds of approaches to budgets I and many on this side have worked for and voted for throughout our careers in Congress.

I have voted for balance going in, and I was looking for balance in the final agreement or the hope of balance that the American people themselves have expressed clearly they wanted to see: spending cuts but also ending those tax loopholes and creating revenue.

I have voted for $2.4 trillion in cuts in the Reid amendment, with the inclusion of a joint committee process--Senator Conrad was talking about that--that could include revenues, a balanced approach.

I have supported increasing the debt limit in a responsible way, a balanced, responsible, fair approach that implements significant but responsible deductions.

I voted in 2010 to establish the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action--the precursor to the Bowles-Simpson Commission--to review all aspects of the financial conditions of our government, including tax policy and entitlement spending.

I voted to protect Social Security from being used to balance the budget when it hasn't contributed to our debt.

I voted in favor of the Pryor amendment to reduce the budget deficit by at least $154 billion with a balanced approach to cutting our deficits that included discretionary spending, entitlements, and revenues.

I have supported budget enforcement measures, such as the statutory pay-go, to pay as you go when you come up with a new idea for spending or a tax break, to control both spending and revenues.

I led the effort in this Chamber to cut $21 billion in unwarranted Big Oil subsidies and supported saving almost $6 billion this year alone by cutting ethanol subsidies.

I have voted five times in the past to increase the debt limit in a responsible way.

But this eleventh-hour deal, with so many strings attached that it has become a tangled web of conservative social values, is nothing more than a concession to the radical right of one party, and it flies in the face of our values as a nation. It would mean drastic and dramatic cuts to one side of the ledger, overwhelmingly from nondefense spending, and no balance--I repeat, no balance--on the revenue side.

I know their suggestion is that the commission can look at revenue. Yes, it can look at revenue, but that commission which is going to be appointed with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats and appointed by the leadership in both Houses pretty much tells you where it is going to end up.

Speaker Boehner has said he won't appoint anyone to the committee who would accept revenue as part of the mix. Senator McConnell has said there will be no new revenue. They get appointments to that commission. That is half of the commission. Even Gene Sperling, the President's economic adviser, said there will be no new revenues for the next 18 months, which is a clear reflection of what Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell have said.

Since they won't accept revenue except maybe in the context of tax reform, which the joint committee has said it can't do by the end of the year, which is when this commission is called upon--by Thanksgiving--to come forth and make a presentation, and we Democrats will have members on the commission who will be responsible and want to strike a deal, we will end up either having to accept the commission's spending cuts without revenue, leaving us with trillions of dollars in nondefense and entitlement cuts, or automatic sequestered cuts that are even more Draconian.

Does anyone in this Chamber really believe that the Bush tax cuts for the top-tier, the richest, the wealthiest people--millionaires and billionaires--which will expire in 2012, will be on the table in an election year, that the President will issue a veto threat for those tax cuts and make them the hallmark of his reelection campaign? I don't think so.

While I know that if we go to the automatic sequestered cuts, nearly $1 trillion of those automatic cuts will come supposedly from defense, what guarantees are there that we won't use the overseas contingency fund of $1 trillion to meet the defense side of the cuts--the very fund which Republicans, in the budget passed in the House, put in their budget and which virtually all of my Republican colleagues here in the Senate voted on, and they voted on it as cuts. If that isn't the case, what makes us think that supplemental emergency appropriations won't be offered on the defense side while warfighters are in the field, leaving us with no real defense cuts but a hard $1 trillion in cuts on domestic programs such as education, student loans, health care, renewable energy, research and development? And the list goes on.

For those who suggest that this commission and the threat, the sword of those automatic cuts will make people act responsibly, what makes us think that the old paradigm, which I long for, that people will be responsible will take place given what we have seen in which we have a manufactured crisis that has brought us to the verge of an economic crisis that is not only national but international in proportion? If people have been willing to bring us to that point, what makes us think this negotiation as proposed by the legislation will work?

They will continue to look for deeper and deeper cuts to those basic services we as a party and as a nation have fought for. We will spend the next year headed into the national decisionmaking that will take place next November forced to debate deeper cuts, refight old battles, debate a balanced budget amendment and the Bush tax cuts, instead of talking about creating jobs, which is what Americans want to see again, and helping middle-class families who are struggling to make ends meet.

But don't listen to me on that. Listen to Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist who wrote today that this deal is a disaster-- his words--for the economy. He said:

Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply

depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have

a depressed economy all through next year. And we will

probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if

not beyond.

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash

government spending, since that will depress the economy even

further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence

fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure

businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It

doesn't work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of

the historical record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed

won't even help the budget situation much, and might well

make it worse. On one side, interest rates on Federal

borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will

do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side,

making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run

prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those

demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who

treated the sick by bleeding them and thereby making them

even sicker.

And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which

amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president.

First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in

revenue.

Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit

reduction--and if these recommendations aren't accepted,

there will be more spending cuts.

I described before the possibility of getting revenue in that equation with the appointments being made by the authorities making them, saying they will appoint no one who will consider revenues. There will be, therefore, even more spending cuts. That is a Nobel Prize economist.

No, there is no balance in this agreement, no real compromise. It simply does not force the shared sacrifice the American people have demanded. Oil companies will make $143 billion in profits this year, the Big Five. They will keep picking the pockets of American taxpayers with a ridiculous handout while they earn those billions in profits. Ethanol millionaires will be off the hook with this deal. There is no balance in this deal. There is no fairness. There is nothing but concessions to the radical rightwing of the Republican Party that is holding the American economy hostage, with a gun to its head, threatening to pull the trigger if they don't get their way.

Yet no one on the right seems to be happy. They want more. They believe they have not gotten enough. When is enough, enough? How far do we have to bend before we break? How much do we have to give of our values, our beliefs, our vision of America? How much do we have to give of the promises we have made as a nation to hard-working, middle-class families struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay the bills, the mortgage, pay for health care, tuition to put their children through college, and give them a chance at a better life?

How about those whose lives would be shattered except for the government's protection? We are their voice. I speak for them when I say this is not a fair deal, but it is the deal before us. What is fair is fair, but this plan is not fair to the American people. I cannot in good conscience support a plan where soldiers, seniors, students, and working families must endure trillions in cuts while oil companies, billionaires, corporate jet owners are not asked to pay one cent toward shared sacrifice.

The Republicans turned a relatively routine vote to meet America's obligations into a crisis threatening the world's economy. In response, the Reid plan met them 80 percent of the way by proposing $2.4 trillion in cuts, creating a process where a bipartisan commission could find a balanced approach to deficit reductions that would go beyond that and that would meet the

American people's call for shared sacrifice from those who have not only the greatest wealth in the country but also those who seem to have the privilege and the power to fashion the Tax Code in a way that benefits them but doesn't benefit working-class families in our country.

No, that was not enough for the tea party, nor for the party they now control. No, instead they have insisted on a process where oil companies, billionaires, offshore tax havens, and the corporate elite are completely protected from making shared sacrifices. That is simply not fair. I cannot support it. The thought that because our soldiers will join seniors, students, and working-class families on the chopping block that Democrats should flock to this plan is wrongheaded. Eliminating troubled DOD weapons systems is one thing, but across-the- board cuts will punish those who are bravely serving our country in a time of war. Adding these cuts just makes what was a painful plan a totally unfair, unbalanced, and unacceptable plan.

I supported the majority leader's plan. I have shown I am serious about deficit reduction. I have supported a fair deal as described by people in New Jersey and across our country, a reasonable deficit- reduction plan that truly represents compromise, a deal that fulfills the commonsense idea of shared sacrifice.

I know shared sacrifice. This is not shared sacrifice. This is capitulation to a radical fringe of the Republican Party that will not bend until they break this economy or get their own way. I have been for deficit reduction. I have voted for fair approaches to deficit reduction. I know fairness, but this deal is not fair, and I will not support it.

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

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

Mr. President, there are no easy answers to our current dilemma. The majority leader's proposal is the best option we have to overcome the bipartisan impasse. Failure to increase the debt limit is not an option. Working families cannot afford the increased costs associated with default, and seniors cannot afford not to have their Social Security payments.

In my time as a mayor, as a State legislator, as a Member of the House of Representatives, and now as a Senator, I have learned there are times when one needs to stand and fight, and there are other times when one needs to reach a compromise. I am not excited about the decisions we are being forced to make, but I think the majority leader has crafted a proposal that can bring the two parties together and avoid economic disaster without destroying Medicare, Social Security, and other priorities of working families.

If you compare that to Speaker Boehner's proposal, that is just more of the partisan gamesmanship, and the path we have to take becomes clear. So I rise today in favor of the majority leader's plan in the hope that reason will prevail on the other side, and that our Republican colleagues will finally agree to help govern and not make irrational demands that drive us down the road to default.

Having said that, these debt negotiations have left America longing for a better time and a better government, a time when public service was, as Robert Kennedy said, a noble profession, when public servants served the public's interests, when they came together and found common ground and respected the opinions of those on the other side.

My generation has always viewed public service as a noble profession and the fight for what we believe is right as a noble cause. But none of us should expect to win every battle. None of us should dismiss the valid beliefs of those whose politics we oppose but who have been duly elected and sworn in to represent their State or their district.

The tea party Republicans in the House seem to have forgotten that we live in a democracy, and in a democracy people hold different views, contrary but equally valid opinions. They approach problems differently, from a different perspective, a different background, a different political view, and have differing views on the best solution.

The art of governing is bridging those differences. Governing is finding common ground. Governing is what Ronald Reagan talked about in his autobiography, ``An American Life,''

when he spoke about the importance of political compromise. He understood that in a representative democracy each of us has a right to our opinion but not a right to our own way.

President Reagan said:

When I began entering into the give and take of the

legislative bargaining--

This is in Sacramento. This is when he was Governor--

a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me

during the election did not like it.

Compromise was a dirty word to them, and they wouldn't face

the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today.

They wanted all or nothing, and they wanted it all at once.

If you don't get it all, some said don't take anything.

Sound familiar? It should. It is the view of today's radical tea party--the same view Ronald Reagan confronted.

Reagan went on to say:

I learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom

get everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who

said, in 1933, ``I have no expectations of making a hit every

time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible

batting average.''

If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were

asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later,

and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never

got used to it.

Ronald Reagan in his own words--a lesson from a conservative hero for those modern-day radical conservatives who have watched us walk 90 yards down the field, but would rather move the goal posts than meet us at the 10-yard line. Ronald Reagan would tell them to grow up, step up and govern. But they have reiterated the mantra of the radical conservatives Reagan faced: ``If you don't get it all, don't take anything.''

Edmund Burke, another conservative icon, once said something today's House Republicans today would label as ``weakness'' or ``too liberal.'' He said:

Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing

because he could only do a little.

House Republicans have chosen to do nothing. Edmund Burke understood the art of governing and the art of compromise. Ronald Reagan knew how radical conservatives think, how they negotiate, and now we are seeing how they stand in the way of governance and governing to maintain the purity of their ideology.

Clearly, Democrats have offered much. We have offered the other side an opportunity to govern, and they have rejected it on ideological grounds. We have lived up to our duty to govern. They have lived up to Ronald Reagan's own view of radical conservative tactics and philosophy.

I say to my friends, it is time to compromise and time to govern.

I was shocked to witness the audacity of the House Republicans who stepped to the microphone this week, one by one, each claiming that, if this Nation defaults on its obligations, it will be the President's fault. It will be the Democrats who caused us to default.

Democrats have come a long way and the Republicans know it--they just won't accept it, and they can't sell it to the American people because the American people know the truth.

Everyone knows the House tea party Republicans have rejected every proposal. They have even rejected the Republican Speaker's original proposal. They claim to love democracy and freedom of speech only when it is their speech, only when it expresses their ideas and their beliefs.

They claim to love our system of government, but clearly are at war with the idea of governing, and with all those on this side who--I would respectfully remind them--have also been elected to serve, just as they have.

They claim to embrace constitutional notions of tolerance and majority rule, but clearly see such notions as an inconvenient obstacle to getting their own way. They have the audacity to blame us for offering them what they want, and then to claim we haven't offered enough--that we are the problem.

The fact is, with the plan the majority leader has put forth, Democrats are now offering exactly what the Republicans have asked for, and yet they still will not take yes for an answer.

They even claim that they are willing to compromise as long as it is within their framework--the framework of their original demands--that they will compromise on the kind of a balanced budget amendment we pass. They will only compromise on how deep the cuts to entitlements are, but they will not compromise on subsidies to big oil companies or billionaire tax cuts that wealthy Americans have, themselves, told us they don't need.

In effect their only compromise is getting their own way and calling it compromise. Well there is a difference between compromise and total capitulation. There must be a common ground that simply doesn't call for surrender. There's an Old Scottish proverb that says: ``Better bend than break.''

I say to my colleagues: We have done all the bending. Now it is time to govern.

I say to my colleagues: ``Better bend than break,'' because in this case it is our economic integrity that stands to break.

It is time for the truth.

It is time we look at the real impact on real people's lives if Republicans continue to stand firm--unwilling to bend, unwilling to compromise, unwilling to govern--but clearly willing to take America down the road to default.

According to Secretary Geithner, the consequences for the Nation--and for millions in my State of New Jersey--would be deep and far-reaching.

Failure to raise the debt limit--failure to allow Treasury to meet the obligations of the United States that we have already incurred-- would be the ultimate tax increase on every American.

As such, surely it would violate the radical right's pledge to Grover Norquist. And, make no mistake, it would be a tax increase.

The no-compromise-Republican tax-increase would come in the form of increased interest rates--driving up the costs for every American family: the cost of mortgage payments would increase over $1,000 annually; equity prices and home values would decline which, in turn, would reduce retirement savings and affect the long-term and short-term economic security of every American.

There would be reductions in spending and investments, jobs would be lost, businesses would fail, credit card interest would increase by about $250 annually, families would be paying $100 more for gas, $182 for utilities, and $318 more for groceries.

Based on J.P. Morgan's financial analysis during the debt ceiling and government shutdown debate in 1995 and the crisis in 2008, interest rates on Treasury bonds could conceivably rise 75 or even 100 basis points.

Between mortgages and credit cards alone, an increase of 75 basis points would translate into an additional $10 billion in consumer borrowing costs every year at a time when middle class families can ill afford any increase at all in expenditures.

From an international perspective, default would have prolonged and disastrous negative consequences on the safe-haven status of Treasuries and the dollar's dominant role in the international financial system.

It would reduce the willingness of investors here and abroad to invest in the United States.

In my State of New Jersey, the impact of default would be immediate and all too real. Payments on a broad range of benefits--on other obligations--would be either postponed, limited, or discontinued.

That includes military salaries and retirement benefits for 1,219 troops currently deployed from New Jersey, both active and reservists and almost 500,000 veterans; benefits for almost 1.5 million Social Security beneficiaries and 1.3 million Medicare enrollees would be interrupted; student loan payments; Medicaid payments to States for seniors and the disabled in nursing homes, and payments needed to keep government facilities operating and providing the services people need. The total for all these expenditures for New Jersey alone is $80 billion.

That averages out to be about $26,000 per household in my State, putting a significant portion of the Federal Government's investment in New Jersey and its people at risk.

And yet the Republicans in the House and many in this Chamber will not bend, will not compromise, refuse to step up and govern. Their ideology demands that they protect entitlements for the most entitled Americans--big

oil, corporate jet owners, and those who hold a majority of the wealth in this Nation.

In my view, in my life, in my work, I have come to understand how wrong they are.

When the 400 richest Americans at the top hold more wealth than the 150 million Americans at the bottom, we cannot simply put the burden on those who can afford it the least and need our help the most.

Let's be clear. The Republican protection of the entitled class has nothing to do with balancing the budget or reducing the deficit, nothing to do with values, nothing to do with faith or cultural conservatism, nothing to do with community responsibility, and everything to do with an extreme antigovernment political agenda that is, in fact, anticommunity.

I believe we can do better for families, better for every American if we live and govern by the values we preach.

During this process, those of us on this side of the aisle have held to what the sociologist Max Weber once called the ``ethic of responsibility.''

House Republicans are pursuing what he called the ``ethic of ultimate ends.''

George Packer in a recent New Yorker article said:

These ethics are tragically opposed, but the true calling

of politics requires a union of the two.

We, on this side, believe in ethical responsibility, in doing what is right for the Nation.

Republicans have shown that they believe in one thing and one thing only--achieving their ultimate political end and, in this case, achieving that end means standing in the way of any compromise--even if it threatens to paralyze this Nation's economy, even if it means rejecting the wisdom of their own hero who understood the importance of compromise in the art of governance.

I repeat what Reagan said:

Compromise was a dirty word to them, and they wouldn't face

the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today.

They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If

you don't get it all, some said don't take anything.

Well, it is time to realize that governing is not about getting it all, it's about getting it right for the American people.

Let America understand that Reagan himself stood against those radical conservatives whose rigid adherence to ideology at the expense of reason is now taking us down the road to default.

It is on them, and it is up to them to grow up, step up, and compromise.

As the American people have said in every poll, they want a balanced approach. That means a combination of significant spending cuts but also revenues. If they accepted that, we could govern.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I came to the floor. I heard an interesting colloquy going on between my colleagues, my friend from Utah and my friend from Alabama, and I saw that my name was invoked, so I thought I would come to the floor and maybe elucidate for them and set the record a little bit straight.

No. 1 is I am no longer the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, so my focus in ending the tax breaks that the big five oil companies in this country get to the tune of $21 billion that the taxpayers of this country give in essence to big five oil companies that will make $144 billion in profits this year I simply think don't need it in order to be able to achieve what the marketplace has allowed them to do. And I am happy for them. I am happy for all their stockholders and shareholders and everyone else, but they don't need $21 billion of the taxpayers' money and tax break--which, by the way, they describe them as these poor oil companies that, wow, we are going to stop domestic production.

One of the breaks I want to finish actually says you can't be doing what you are doing. Here in the United States, when you get access to the lands and waters to drill for oil and gas, you pay a royalty. Basically, a royalty is a license fee.

The oil companies figured out, Well, when I do this in other countries in the world, instead of paying a license fee, let me ask them to pay a tax for the same amount that it would have cost to pay a license fee. Because then I get the tax and I get to deduct it totally against my obligations here in the United States, which means that for those poor oil companies that I just heard about, we are, in essence, as taxpayers, subsidizing the exploration of foreign oil which goes on a world marketplace--does not come back to the United States--to the tune of $21 billion.

If we want to talk about the poor, I want to talk about poor people whom Republicans, it seems, want to go after. They want to go after in their budget the things people need to get through every day. It is called Medicare for seniors and the disabled. I know it from my mother's own life. She worked in the factories of New Jersey, worked a lifetime to help build family and community. She had a terrible disease, Alzheimer's, and she would not have lived with the dignity she deserved in the twilight of her life but for what my sister and I were able to do for her and Medicare as her baseline of retirement security. That is what I call poor.

I call poor, young children who, under Medicaid, are getting money for specific health care that through no fault of their own they desperately need in order to have the quality of life--to even be able to breathe, children with respiratory ailments--so they can fulfill their God-given potential in school. That is poor.

But oil companies that are going to make $144 billion in profits, they are poor? Give me a break. I know we belittle the fact that it is only $21 billion that we would put directly to deficit reduction, but if we start putting in those $21 billion and then put in the billions in ethanol subsidies and then the horse racing industry and the corporate jets and we start adding it all up, maybe if, instead of working-class and middle-class working families whom our Republican colleagues in the Congress seem to want to put all the emphasis on, if we talked about the wealthiest people in the country and said to them: We need you to help the country get out of this difficult time, they, I think, would be incredibly patriotic.

I have talked to a lot of wealthy people who told me if it is to help the country and if we are going to get our house in order, I am willing to help the country. I am willing to pay a little bit more.

But, no, that is not possible to even talk about. It is not possible to talk about big oil companies that are going to make record profits. It is not possible to talk about ethanol. It is not possible to talk about the wealthiest in the country, millionaires, multimillionaires, and billionaires. Yet I did not hear any of these voices when Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 17 times for the equivalent of $4 trillion in today's money. I never heard any of these voices say how irresponsible it was when George Bush raised it seven times, for $5 trillion--basically, the same amount of money he used to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country but which became the collective debt of the United States. No, I did not hear any of it then.

I had no intention of coming to the floor. But when the facts are wrong and my name is invoked, I intend to come and set the record straight. I am happy to debate my colleagues. We need to make sure working-class, middle-class families in this country do not bear the overwhelming consequences of our effort to end our deficits and meet our obligations. We cannot continue to hear we cannot close the loopholes in the Tax Code for the poor oil companies, poor corporate jets, poor multimillionaires and billionaires, all because that would somehow be a tax increase, but we can take it right out of the pockets of middle-class and poor families by virtue of the services we deny them--so they will not have the money to be able to produce or scrounge or keep what little they have been able to acquire--and say that somehow is not a tax increase.

I hear about entitlements all the time. I have a new sense of what my Republican colleagues mean by entitlements. The oil companies are entitled to their $21 billion. Those are just two provisions. I could come up with a whole bunch of others for which they get tax breaks. The oil companies are entitled. The ethanol producers, they are entitled. The large agribusinesses in the country, they are entitled. But families who struggle every day to make ends meet? No, they are not entitled. We have to cut their entitlements.

Something is wrong with that equation. A nation, at the end of the day, in its budget, talks about its values as a country. We all have a budget. We may not think about it as a budget in our personal lives, but it is income, however we derive it, through gainful employment, the job we have, maybe some investments we make, maybe some interests we get from our savings. That is our revenue. Then there are our expenditures. The house we keep for our family, the insurance we provide for their health care, the education, the tuition we pay for the education we want them to achieve, the church or synagogue we tithe to, the charitable contribution we make to an organization that we believe is worthy of the

work we do, that is an expression of our personal values.

The Nation's budget, which is both revenues and expenditures, is an expression of our collective values as a country. I cannot understand, in that expression of collective values, how it is that the very wealthy, that the very influential, that Big Oil is entitled but working-class families and the poorest among us are not entitled to realize their hopes, dreams, and aspirations in the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

Anyhow, I wanted to come, since I heard my name invoked before. I think the facts were not quite up to par. There is, obviously, a different view.

Having had the opportunity to set the record straight, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.