Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 137 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 137 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5653-S5666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE BURMESE
FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.J. Res. 66, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 66) approving the renewal of
import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act of 2003.

Pending:

Reid amendment No. 602, to provide additional
appropriations for disaster relief in fiscal years 2011 and
2012.
Reid amendment No. 603 (to amendment No. 602), to change
the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 604 (to amendment No. 603), of a
perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 605 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 602), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 606 (to amendment No. 605), of a
perfecting nature.
Reid motion to commit the joint resolution to the Committee
on Finance with instructions, Reid amendment No. 607, to
change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 608 (to (the instructions) amendment No.
607), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 609 (to amendment No. 608), of a
perfecting nature.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to
commit and the pending amendments, with the exception of the Reid
substitute amendment No. 602, be withdrawn, and the following
amendments be the only amendments in order to the Reid substitute
amendment No. 602: Coburn amendment No. 610 and Paul amendment No. 613;
that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between
the two leaders or their designees--and this will be for debate on the
amendments and the joint resolution--with 30 minutes for Senator Coburn
and 15 minutes for Senator Paul--and this 15 minutes will come from the
Republican leader's time--and at 4 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on
the amendments in the following order: Coburn amendment No. 610, Paul
amendment No. 613, and, finally, the Reid substitute amendment No. 602,
as amended, if amended; that there be no amendments, points of order,
or motions in order prior to the votes other than budget points of
order and the applicable motions to waive; that the amendments not be
subject to division;

[[Page S5654]]

that all of the amendments be subject to an affirmative 60-vote
threshold; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table; and, finally, if the Reid substitute amendment, as
amended, if amended, achieves 60 votes, the joint resolution, as
amended, be passed; if the Reid substitute does not achieve 60
affirmative votes, the cloture motions be withdrawn and the joint
resolution be placed back on the calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a
quorum, but in doing so, I ask unanimous consent that the time run
equally for both the Democrats and the Republicans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 610 to Amendment No. 602

Mr. COBURN. I ask that amendment No. 610 be considered as pending,
brought up, and read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 610 to amendment No. 602.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To save at least $7,000,000,000 by consolidating some
duplicative and overlapping Government programs)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. CONSOLIDATING UNNECESSARY DUPLICATIVE AND
OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than
150 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
coordinate with the heads of the relevant department and
agencies to--
(1) use available administrative authority to eliminate,
consolidate, or streamline Government programs and agencies
with duplicative and overlapping missions identified in the
March 2011 Government Accountability Office report to
Congress, entitled ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential
Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and
Enhance Revenue'' (GAO-11-318SP) and apply the savings
towards deficit reduction;
(2) identify and report to Congress any legislative changes
required to further eliminate, consolidate, or streamline
Government programs and agencies with duplicative and
overlapping missions identified in the March 2011 Government
Accountability Office report to Congress, entitled
``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue'' (GAO-11-
318SP);
(3) determine the total cost savings that shall result to
each agency, office, and department from the actions
described in paragraph (1); and
(4) rescind from the appropriate accounts the amount
greater of--
(A) $7,000,000,000; or
(B) the total amount of cost savings estimated by paragraph
(3).

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the bill we have before us today is a bill
to fund emergency relief through FEMA for a lot of the emergency
disasters our country has experienced over the past 6 months.
I don't think there is a large disagreement that we ought to take
care of the areas that are the Federal responsibility in the respective
States for the extreme weather as well as fire-related tragedies that
have been experienced by a multitude of States. However, the question
is, given where we stand as a country, do we just borrow the money to
do that and add it to the debt or is the government running so
efficiently that we can't cut something else and make a choice about
how we pay for it? The bill as brought forward has no pay-for at all.
In other words, the assumption is that if we pass this bill, we will go
and borrow approximately $7 billion more in the international markets.
What I would put forward is that we know we have plenty of areas we
can cut now that are not effective, not efficient, that are wasteful,
that are duplicative, and we would not have to borrow that additional
money. The easiest thing in the world is to spend somebody else's
money. And what we are doing with this bill by not paying for it is
actually asking our grandchildren to pay for an obligation we have
today.
The amendment I have asked to be called up is nearly identical to an
amendment this body passed by a vote of 64 to 36 in April of this year.
The Government Accountability Office brought forth a report on
duplication that showed hundreds of millions of dollars in wasteful
duplication. This is not the only area we could go, but this is an area
we have already agreed as a body is an effective way to pay and save
money. We could easily find $7 billion by eliminating multiple programs
that accomplish the same thing. Let me give some examples of what the
GAO showed.

The Department of Defense and the VA are both creating new medical
record systems as we speak, both paying for independent contractors
doing the same thing. They are going to have intertwined medical
records ultimately. We do not need to set up two different programs. By
doing that, we could save a couple of billion dollars, just by having
one program for both VA and DOD.
We have multiple contracts, according to the GAO, in terms of
interagency and areawide contracts that actually increase our
procurement costs, where we could consolidate those and have one
contract and actually save money. But we have not done that. That is
something that can be done by the OMB at our direction.
The other area which is extremely interesting--and the President has
already agreed to this. They are already starting to do it. But we
could do it much faster and save a significant amount of money. We
could save $150 billion to $200 billion over the next 10 years just by
consolidating data centers. We initially had some 500 of those. I think
we are up to around 2,000. We had 434 in 1998 and 2,000 Federal data
centers in 2010. What everybody knows is we could cut that by about
half, not have any change in the effectiveness, and save about $150
billion over the next 10 years.
This amendment identifies the areas listed in the GAO report and
instructs the OMB to find those that are most likely to be achievable
to come to $7 billion. We have agreed to do this in the past on a
previous bill when Senator Warner and I offered this amendment jointly
to pay for the spending.
I can go on with a lot of other areas in terms of wasteful spending.
I will not. But I make this one plea: In August we left after passing a
debt limit increase, the largest debt limit increase we have ever
incurred in segments, and said we were going to start living within our
means. We have created a supercommittee to find $1.5 trillion over the
next 10 years in savings. While they are doing that, if we decide to
pass an emergency supplemental bill for FEMA and do not pay for it, we
are going to be working in exactly the opposite direction of what we
said we needed to do.
The facts are, we are almost schizophrenic. We say we need to cut
spending. Yet we are going to spend $7 billion more. Yet we do not want
to find some spending to cut to pay for it; we just want to borrow it.
You can understand why very few Americans have confidence in us. On the
one hand we are addressing the problem, and on the other hand we are
ignoring the problem.
I think it would behoove the confidence level in this institution if,
in fact, we tried to pay and found the courage and the willpower to say
if we are going to spend additional money, we are going to create
priorities, and we are actually going to eliminate spending somewhere
else to be able to pay for this, to be able to do this more important
thing.

[[Page S5655]]

I have trouble understanding, even when I talk to our colleagues
privately, why we would not do this; why we would not pay for this $7
billion by reducing wasteful spending elsewhere.
As we go to the vote at 4 o'clock, the question that people ask is,
Why was it OK to cut the spending from these departments back in April,
but it is not OK to cut the spending now? Sixty-four of our colleagues
voted to cut this spending in April. I know several are opposed to
paying for this, but we are in a new day. We live in a new world.
The Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce was here this week. The title of
their meeting was ``New Realities.'' The new reality is that we are
going to run to the end of the time at which we can borrow money or
afford to pay the interest rate on the money that we can borrow, and
the discipline we need is to live within our means.
This is one step that will be the right thing to do for future
generations. It is the right thing to do to build confidence in our
institution, and it is the right thing to do to eliminate waste and
duplication in the Federal Government.
I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and make a point
I will talk again on this prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 613

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment
No. 613.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 613 to amendment No. 602.

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To offset the disaster relief appropriations by rescinding
amounts for foreign assistance programs)

On page 12, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

TITLE VI

OFFSET

Sec. 601. (a) All unobligated balances made available to
the United States Agency for International Development for
foreign assistance programs for fiscal year 2011 are
rescinded.
(b) There is rescinded on a pro rata base from the
unobligated balances made available to the Department of
State for fiscal 2011 an amount equal to the difference
obtained by subtracting--
(1) the amount rescinded under subsection (a); from
(2) the amount appropriated under this division.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this is an amendment to pay for the
emergency funds. I think for too long in this body we have just simply
added on funds, often for good causes, but we keep spending money we do
not have. I think the mark of a good legislator is making priorities.
If we choose to spend some money on an emergency, we should take the
money from somewhere else in the budget.
In this amendment we have proposed to take the money from foreign
aid. When the American people are asked if they think we should be
sending welfare to other countries or building bridges in other
countries when our bridges are falling down in this country, 77 percent
of them think we should not be sending money overseas when we have
problems at home. This amendment would take unspent foreign aid money
from this year and apply it toward the disaster funding. It would also
take some unspent money from the State Department.
I think it is responsible budgeting. It is essentially taking money
from another area, spending it, and not adding to our debt. There are
repercussions to the debt we have. I tell people the debt has a face.
Every time we drive to the store our gas prices are rising or our food
prices are rising. The reason our prices are rising is because we have
to pay for the debt by printing new money. As we print new money at the
Federal Reserve to pay for our debt, we diminish the value of the
dollar so our gas prices rise and our food prices rise.
Also, economists have said up to 1 million jobs a year are being lost
to pay for our debt. What I ask for is, as we pay for these natural
disasters we take the money from elsewhere in our budget.
I also rise in support of the plea of Senator Coburn not to target
the transportation funds. Right now we are asking that highway funds,
10 percent of them, go to beautification projects--turtle tunnels,
movie theaters. In our State of Kentucky, we have a bridge that was
closed this week, the Sherman Minton Bridge. Of three bridges in
Louisville, one of them is closed. Traffic is stacked up for hours and
you are telling me we need to have turtle tunnels? Something is
seriously wrong with government when we are forcing State governments
to spend 10 percent of their transportation money on turtle tunnels,
white squirrel parks, and movie theaters.
Another bridge is needed in the northern part of our State, Brent
Spense Bridge, where debris from the bridge is falling. Four years ago
we had a bridge in Minneapolis that fell into the river and killed 13
people. We, as a nation, need to set our priorities, but I think it is
incorrect and a real problem that we are telling people they have to
take 10 percent of the transportation funds and put them into bike
paths.
I am a bicyclist and I like bike paths as much as anybody. But when
bridges are falling into a river and a major metropolitan area such as
Louisville, KY, has one-third of it's bridge capacity closed because
the bridge is dangerous to travel on, these are emergency problems.
It also buys into what I am talking about with foreign aid. We cannot
send welfare to other countries that we do not have. We are not sending
them money that is from our savings. We are sending money that we are
borrowing from China or that we are printing. There are ramifications
to this debt. We are borrowing money at $40,000 a second. There are
ramifications to this borrowing. It has a face. It is just not an empty
number.
When we say our national debt is $14 trillion or that we are adding
$1.5 trillion to the debt every year, there are ramifications to that,
and there is a face. The face is unemployment. The face is people
losing jobs. We see it in the grocery store with our prices rising. The
debt has ramifications.
In Europe, we are seeing the end stages of this in some cases. We are
seeing chaos and rioting in the streets. We had rioting in London
recently. We had rioting in Greece, Portugal, Spain. All of these
countries are tumbling under a burden of debt, and it has been
predicted that this is coming to the United States. It is coming soon.
It is a contagion of debt that is sweeping the world, and it is all
pyramided upon the U.S. dollar.
Once upon a time, banks in Europe held gold as their reserve. They
now hold the dollar as reserve. When the dollar tumbles or when we have
trouble paying for our debt, there will be massive worldwide problems.
We are in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression,
and there are no signs that any of the policies coming from the White
House are working. In fact, the first stimulus package did not work.
Two million more people are out of work since the President came into
office. The price of gasoline has doubled. Our debt has been
downgraded. We are set to accumulate, under this administration, more
debt than all 43 previous Presidents combined. It is not working.
Recently, the President came over to a joint session of Congress and
presented to us the ``son of stimulus''--the son of a stimulus that did
not work in the first place. He said we are just going to tax those
rich people.
Rich people hire poor people. Most of us have jobs because rich
people hired us. They are talking about adding $400 billion in new
taxes on those who make $200,000 a year or more.
You say the rich ought to pay their fair share. The rich are paying
for the income tax--47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. So half
of Americans are already paying for all of the income tax. The Bush tax
cuts actually made the Tax Code more progressive because they dropped
off more people from the lower end. If we look at those who make more
than $200,000 a year, it is 3 percent of the public. They earn 30

[[Page S5656]]

percent of the income and pay 50 percent of the income tax.
If you are saying the Tax Code needs to be made more fair, it would
probably be that we would have to make the Tax Code less progressive.
The bottom line is, if I thought it would help people, we could do
it. It is going to hurt people. The head of the Congressional Budget
Office is an objective spokesman who analyzes government. He testified
before the supercommittee yesterday that it would be a mistake to raise
taxes. The preponderance of economists say it would be a mistake to
raise taxes in the middle of a recession. It will lead to more
joblessness.
Pitting one group--class envy--pitting one group against another gets
us nowhere. Years ago we tried this. We said we will have a special tax
on those who own yachts. Guess who lost their jobs. The men and women
making $40,000 and $50,000 a year lost their jobs. It does not work. It
is unhealthy. It is not good for America to blame one class of people
versus the other. We want to lift everyone in America. We want a
thriving economy. When we lowered tax rates in the 1980s, we had 6
percent and 7 percent growth in a year. We are at 1 percent growth and
we look like we are headed in the wrong direction. They say the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result.

This new jobs plan by the President is the ``son of stimulus.'' It is
the son of a stimulus that did not work the first time. When we
calculate it, it cost $400,000 per job. It did not work. We should not
be doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different
result.
I would say in conclusion that my amendment is the responsible
budgetary amendment, and it pays for the new disaster funding. If we
wish to help people and we think our Federal Government should be
involved with disaster funding, it should be paid for. It should not be
borrowed from China, and it should not be simply printed up at the
printing press. We should pay for it.
I urge other Senators to support my amendment which would offset the
disaster funding by reducing a corresponding amount from foreign aid,
the welfare we give to other nations, many of them rich nations. I
would ask serious consideration of it.
I would also ask serious consideration of Senator Coburn's proposal
that when we have bridges crumbling in our country, we not force States
to build turtle tunnels, squirrel sanctuaries, and movie theaters. We
have crumbling bridges and we need to get this through and we need to
say we are not going to force the States to decide to have these
beautification projects.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Requests--H.R. 2887

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would like to say Senator Reid and I
have had several discussions today and we are working to try to resolve
an impasse we have, but we are not there yet. I wanted to be clear with
my colleagues what my intent was, and if we can work the problems out,
I am happy to try to do that.
I have three separate unanimous consent requests I am going to be
asking for. One will separate the FAA bill, pass it, and send it to the
House. Another will separate the Transportation bill, eliminating the
transportation enhancement component of it and send it to the House,
and another one eliminates the transportation component of the combined
bill and sends it back to the House. I understand the leader is
concerned with those but felt I would exercise my right to offer those
unanimous consent requests.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of H.R. 2887, the House-passed FAA surface
transportation reauthorization bill, and my amendment at the desk
related to a 4-month extension shall be agreed to, the bill, as
amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any
statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of H.R. 2887, the House-passed FAA surface
transportation reauthorization bill, that the Coburn amendment at the
desk related to repealing the 10-percent transportation enhancement
mandate be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and
passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no
intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be
printed in the Record.
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2887, the House-passed
FAA surface transportation reauthorization bill, that my amendment at
the desk related to a 6-month surface transportation extension that
repeals the 10-percent transportation enhancement mandate be agreed to,
the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate,
and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be
determined by me after consultation with Senator McConnell, the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 167, H.R. 2887, the
Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act; that the only
first-degree amendments in order to the bill be the following: Coburn
amendment regarding transportation enhancements, Paul amendment
regarding limitation on highway trust funds, and the Paul amendment
regarding FAA funding levels; that there be up to 2 hours of debate on
the amendments, equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees, prior to a vote in relation to the amendments in the order
listed; that there be no amendment in order to any of the amendments
prior to the votes; that the amendments be subject to a 60-vote
threshold; that upon disposition of the amendments, the Senate proceed
to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; that there be
no other amendments, points of order or motions in order to the bill
other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive;
and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table.
Mr. COBURN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum, and I ask
unanimous consent that the time until 4 o'clock be equally divided
between the majority and minority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are looking at a FEMA emergency
supplemental. There is no doubt this country has sustained a series of
disasters that will require Federal support and funding. We have seen
them in Alabama, my home State, where we had the worst series of
tornadoes in history, and some of the most powerful, that completely
demolished two-story brick homes with nothing but foundations left.
Lives were lost to an extraordinary degree, and people were injured.
We have had floods. We have had fires and droughts around the
country. We have some of that every year, and some of this is unusual.
So it is incumbent upon us in Congress to wrestle with that and to try
to figure out what should be done and how we can best supplement the
insurance and State actions and local people's abilities to respond and
share a bit of the pain throughout the country.

[[Page S5657]]

Since I have been interested in the emergency bill and I have some
ideas, I was surprised we were told it was going to be added to the
Burma sanctions bill, and it was going to be $6.9 billion. I hadn't had
a chance to know and review and see what those numbers were and whether
they were justified. But Majority Leader Reid said we want to move to
that. That is what we want to do.
Some said--and surely it is not true--that Senator Reid was setting a
trap for the Republicans; that he would offer this bill, throw it out
there, and he would have extra money in it and we would complain. Then
he would say: The Republicans don't love people who have suffered with
a disaster as I love people who have suffered with a disaster. You
don't care. You don't want to help people who are hurting. You are not
good people. I am a good person. I love them more than you do.

I hope that is not true. I do not believe it is true. Surely, it is
not true. But I will just point this out: that President Obama's
funding request for this supplemental that we have seen was for $500
million in 2011, $4.6 billion for next year, totaling $5.1 billion.
That is what the President proposed. But the Senate Democrats' proposal
that Senator Reid has moved forward has $804 million in 2011, $6.1
billion in 2012, for a total of $6.9 billion. That is about almost a $2
billion difference.
You know they say: That is not much money, just $2 billion. We spend
a lot more money than that around here on all kinds of things, and we
shouldn't worry about it, Sessions. You are just slowing down the
emergency bill. It has to go through right now.
I just pointed out previously that $2 billion is a lot of money. We
have an education budget in my State that is pretty sizable, but the
basic general fund budget of Alabama is about $2 billion. We are an
average-sized State. We are about one-fiftieth--4 million people--of
the United States. So $2 billion is $2 billion. A billion here and a
billion there, you are talking about real money. I am just raising a
question. I suggest that this kind of rapid spending, emotional,
political movement of money through this body is why this country has
gotten into financial trouble. We just increase the pricetag for a bill
by $2 billion and rush it through and attack anybody who has the
gumption to stand, such as Senator Tom Coburn, and raise some real
questions about it. How much of this can we pay for? Can we pay for it
all--we probably could and probably should--or pay for part of it so it
is not borrowed? You see, an emergency in general is debt. When we
declare something an emergency, we are adding to the debt. It means it
is not under the budget. We have a budget limit, and all spending is
supposed to be under our budgetary limit, although we have not had a
budget in 2 years. But when we do a supplemental, it does not count
that way.
I have seen the Presiding Officer be pretty sophisticated in these
things. I remember, I was talking to a senior Congressman about an
emergency bill years ago that was not truly an emergency, and he said:
Well, Jeff, we need to put it on the emergency supplemental.
I said: Why?
He said: It doesn't count against the deficit.
I said: Why?
He said: I don't know. It just doesn't count.
What he meant was it was not part of the budgetary numbers. It was on
top of it. It added to the debt in general.
We have to be careful about that. We are borrowing now 40 cents of
every $1 we spend. That is not a misprint. I am not speaking
erroneously. Forty cents of every $1 that is spent this year is
borrowed.
Responsible senatorial management requires us to examine the
legislation. When we have a bill that is about 40 percent more than the
President asked for, maybe that ought to throw up a red flag around
here. Maybe we ought to examine it more closely because every single
penny that is spent should be spent wisely. There are two areas: Are we
spending money that is not needed at all--and we have had some of that
under emergency spending--or are we spending money that could be spent
better on other problems that arose from the emergency than the
problems we are spending it on?
I have been to hurricane damages, I have been to flood damages, I
have been to tornado damages, drought damages. It is hard to get the
money to the people who truly need it and whom you can justify. This is
not just throwing money at something.
So we can do a better job of that. Congress needs to be more
involved. I think $2 billion is a lot. We ought to be careful before we
do that. Most of the money is not going to get spent until next year,
by far. Overwhelmingly, 80 percent of it is to be spent next year. I
believe we ought to be taking time to do this right.
I would also like to take the opportunity, while I have the floor, to
address this morning's hearing in the Budget Committee, on which I am
the ranking member. At today's hearing, I emphasized the economic
danger our country is facing as a result of the increasing deficit. We
had three economists testify. Two of them were selected by our
Democratic majority colleagues. We asked whether they agreed that it
would be wise to pursue policies that create jobs without creating
debt. They all acknowledge that increasing debt is a dangerous thing.
We discussed whether we should seek ways to create jobs and growth in
America without adding to the debt. Wouldn't that be smart? They all
agreed it would--things such as producing more American energy,
reducing costly bureaucratic regulations, and instituting growth-
oriented tax reform. All three witnesses said those are good things to
do for America.
I would say, if we are going to spend $7 billion or $5 billion on an
emergency, it helps Americans' growth, productivity, and
competitiveness if that money is spent the best possible way, every
penny of it to help people truly in need and to help increase our
national productivity.
Those are some of the concerns I have. I just wanted to share those
thoughts because I think we would have been better off had this bill
come through the regular process, we had full testimony from the
administration witnesses, from FEMA, which will be handling the money,
setting forth in detail where they expect to spend the money, how it is
needed, and how they are going to do it in a way that is fair and helps
the people in the right way. I do not believe the way this bill is
moving is careful enough, and I believe it places at risk the treasury
of the United States.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in a few minutes we are going to be voting
on a bill that has been put on the floor that would address many of the
emergency disaster needs that have come our way this last year.
In my State of South Dakota, it has been a year for the record books.
We have had historically cold winters the last couple of winters. We
had a historically wet spring and, if you look at the Missouri River
basin, unprecedented amounts of runoff, to the point where we had
flooding on the Missouri River throughout the entire basin, up and
down. My State of South Dakota, of course, was impacted dramatically by
that, as were many of the States in the basin, and I think, like a lot
of parts of the country this year that have experienced weather-related
disasters, there are a lot of people who have been hurt by that. In my
State of South Dakota, we have a lot of homeowners in the Pierre and
Fort Pierre area and the Dakota Dunes area and the Yankton area. We
have had tremendous wet weather in northeastern South Dakota, and there
are a lot of people who have been flooded up there.
We have people in these areas of my State who literally have lost
everything--their homes. It was not one of those situations where you
get an event that comes through, it is gone quickly, and you can go in
and clean up and recover. In this case, they were floods that persisted
over long periods of time--in this case months. I remember touring some
of those areas in my State and in some cases having to go out there
literally in a boat to see homes and having to walk into a home in
waders because the water in the living room was literally up to my
waist.

[[Page S5658]]

And the water was there literally for weeks. There were a lot of black
mold problems, of course, just a tremendous amount of damage.
As I said, in many cases these are people who for various reasons did
not have flood insurance, in most cases because they were told they
didn't need it, they were not in the flood plain. These were homeowners
who, when the Missouri River dams were built, thought, at least, that
they were protected by those dams and as a consequence, perhaps, did
not purchase flood insurance, with rare exceptions. Of course, in all
of these cases too there are homeowners who, if they did not have flood
insurance, have in some cases lost everything. I am not talking about
just homeowners who have resources and means, I am talking about
people--I met with retired schoolteachers who put everything they had
into these homes along the Missouri River, and now they have literally
lost everything. So I can appreciate how important it is that we do
everything we can to respond to this enormous weather-related disaster
that has come our way.
I have great sympathy for those other areas of the country that have
been impacted this year as well. I know that on the east coast, we had
flooding from the hurricane, and we have had tornadoes this summer that
have wiped out parts of entire communities.
It has been a very difficult weather year, and as we approach this
issue of how to deal with that, I think it is important that we bear in
mind--that we do everything possible to address the needs these
homeowners have and try to help them rebuild their lives and put things
back together.
So as we get into this debate, certainly I recognize the importance
of us having a response. I think that one way or the other, Congress
will respond, whether it happens today or in the form of some relief
that may be coming over from the House of Representatives. But I
believe it is important that we do that. It is also important, given
the budgetary circumstances in which we find ourselves, that we pay for
it. I think there are a couple of amendments we are going to vote on
this afternoon that would accomplish just that.
The Senator from Oklahoma has proposed an amendment which many of us
have voted for in the past. I think it got 64 votes here in the Senate,
both Republicans and Democrats supporting it. It would do away with
some of the duplication we have in our Federal Government.
The Government Accountability Office has identified lots of areas of
duplication. In fact, I think the Senator from Oklahoma has already
gone through some of those, but I have been here on the floor and
addressed some of these as well: 56, or thereabouts, programs spread
across 10 or so agencies that deal with financial literacy; 82 programs
that deal with the issue of teacher training. I think you have to argue
that there is plenty of waste and duplication and redundancy in our
Federal Government, and we ought to be doing everything we can to
eliminate that, particularly if we are looking at prioritizing where we
spend our tax dollars.
In a case such as this, we have people across our country who have
been hurt by these natural disasters who need our assistance. It
strikes me, at least, that if we are serious about priorities--and I
think all budgets are about priorities--we ought to be able to find
some savings in these programs and agencies that have been identified
by the GAO that would enable us to find the funds that are necessary to
cover the disaster effort.
So I would come down here and speak in support of the Coburn
amendment.
I think the Paul amendment as well seeks to use unobligated balances
from USAID, the State Department. Of course, we are getting to the end
of the year, and if there are funds that have not been obligated, that
have not been used, that strikes me as well as a way in which we can
find some resources that would help us prioritize and put them where
they are really needed right now; that is, to deal with these impacted
communities, these impacted families, these impacted homeowners, and
helping them rebuild their lives.
But fundamentally, when you have a $1.3, $1.4 trillion annual deficit
and when you are already at $14 trillion in debt and it is growing at
the rate it is, when you have a debt-to-GDP which is literally about 1
to 1, about 100 percent--you have to go back to the end of World War II
to find a time in our Nation's history when we have seen that kind of
debt. These deficits to GDP, debt to GDP, spending to GDP are at
historic highs. It strikes me that even for important matters such as
disaster relief, we have to be as responsible as we possibly can and
make sure we are doing justice to the American taxpayer and not
spending money we do not have.
I think the House of Representatives--and what they intend to do is
address this through the continuing resolution which will be coming our
way sometime next week. Their approach is to put some additional money,
supplemental money, into FEMA, into the Corps of Engineers--those
agencies that are kind of on the front lines in responding to many of
these disasters. I hope we have an opportunity to vote on that
legislation. That will be paid for. That will be within the budget.
That will not be deficit spending or borrowing from our children and
grandchildren, adding more to the debt. So I think it is a responsible
and reasonable way to deal with this, and maybe in the end that is
where this ends up.
But the debate we are having today is whether we are going to
appropriate $6.9 billion, around $7 billion for disaster relief. I
don't think we have a full grasp yet of what some of these damages are.
The assessments are still coming in. But I think it is important that
we be responsible in how we distribute disaster relief, that we know as
much as possible about the full scale and the dimensions of the problem
and what those damages are and then, secondly, that we do everything we
can to find areas in the budget in which we can offset that disaster
relief.
So I hope we can support the amendments that are before us today. As
I said before, the Coburn amendment is not something new to the Senate.
The Coburn amendment is an amendment many of us have supported in the
past. Sixty-four Senators--that is a very large bipartisan majority
here in the Senate--have supported this amendment to do away with these
duplicative programs and to try to gain some efficiency and some
savings in our Federal Government.
It strikes me, at least, that when we are dealing with an issue as
important as disaster relief is to so many Americans, we certainly
ought to be able to prioritize and take some of those duplicative
programs and some of those redundant programs we have in the Federal
Government that have been identified by the Government Accountability
Office--ask the OMB to identify $7 billion in savings in order to
offset the costs of what we are doing here with regard to disaster
relief.
So I am certainly going to support these amendments--and I hope my
colleagues will--for a lot of reasons. Again, we need to respond when
we have a natural disaster such as this, but we need to do it in a
responsible way. And when we are running these massive annual deficits
we are running today, we need to do everything we possibly can to see
that we are paying the Nation's bills, that we are not adding it to the
credit card, not handing the bill to our children and grandchildren,
not spending money we do not have, but doing everything we can to live
within our means. It is the responsible way to go about this. In my
view, it is a reasonable way to go about this. I think it is the right
way to deal with the Nation's business; that is, to pay your bills. The
Coburn amendment does that. His amendment, I guess of the two,
specifically directs the $7 billion. I am not sure whether the Paul
amendment has a specific score on it. But either would be an important,
in my view, message to the American people that we are serious about
getting our fiscal house in order. So I hope we will have both
Republicans and Democrats here in the Senate that would support both of
those amendments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for about 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5659]]

Farm Dust Regulation

Mr. JOHANNS. I rise today to actually extend an invitation. The
invitation I extend is to our EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. The
reason for the invitation is very straightforward. There is a lot of
confusion about EPA's position on regulating farm dust. It is
remarkable. The Administrator says one thing, but then the agency takes
a different position--back and forth, back and forth it has gone.
Administrator Jackson said, and I am using her words, ``It is a myth
that EPA is proposing to regulate farm dust.'' That seems pretty clear,
but then her agency says: Well, no, we cannot distinguish between farm
dust and other dust subject to regulation, so rural America is not off
the hook, it is out of luck.
Well, I was very pleased recently to offer a solution to this EPA
dilemma. My solution was offered in partnership with my friend and
colleague from Iowa, Senator Chuck Grassley, and others actually from
both sides of the aisle. We proposed a simple solution to this
confusion. We proposed legislation that--very straightforward--says:
EPA cannot regulate farm dust unless there is scientific proof that it
causes harm.
That proof does not exist today. Meanwhile, Ms. Jackson and her
agency continue to have problems getting this story straight. You see,
she scoffs at the idea of regulating farm dust, and then her agency
turns around and says: Well, it is really a possibility.
I understand that sometimes the direction from the top can get
muddled as it works its way down. After all, EPA is a very large
organization.
Surely, Administrator Jackson does not intend to be saying one thing
while her agency is saying and potentially doing something quite
different. So I am hopeful I have come up with yet another solution.
Today, Senator Grassley and I sent a letter to Administrator Jackson.
We have invited her to publicly support our bill blocking the
regulation of farm dust. After all, using her own word, this was a
``myth'' in the first place. I think it is a perfect solution. She says
EPA has no intention of regulating farm dust, so there is absolutely no
reason why she would not support this legislation that makes it
official. My letter invites her to put her words into action by issuing
a straightforward supportive statement. I look forward to hearing back
from her or simply seeing her statement of support in print. Either
will be acceptable.
I will tell you this: I believe if Administrator Jackson stands up in
response to this and says, yes, I was serious, we are not going to
regulate farm dust, that is a myth, and Senator Johanns has it all
wrong, I believe rural America will cheer.
Supporting my bill that puts an end to this crazy, ridiculous notion
of regulating farm dust would do more to improve Administrator
Jackson's image than the charm offensive EPA has recently undertaken.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Deficit Reduction

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I understand that a couple of our
colleagues are on their way, and I will yield to them if they get here
as expected.
In the meantime, I wish to share some thoughts with the Senate about
the very complex and difficult duty we all now face, which is to agree
to legislation that will reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 billion
over the next decade. And, if we fail to do that, by the end of the
year, huge automatic budgets in vital national programs, including in
security, will take effect to meet the deficit reduction goal. Those
automatic cuts would take an unacceptable toll on vital programs. I
believe every Member of Congress must do their best to avoid that
outcome, and that begins with the 12 members of the Joint Select
Committee who have been given the assignment of crafting a plan for us
to consider.
Despite the difficulty, the task is achievable. We can reach our
deficit reduction targets and help ensure fiscal stability while
avoiding not only the damaging automatic cuts but also avoiding
devastating cuts to defense, health, education, and other programs
vital to America and to its families. Achieving this goal will require
sacrifices. Everyone is going to have to contribute. But if all of us,
every American, will make the sacrifices necessary, we can get this
done.
How can we do it? Well, we could pretend we can resolve this problem
by ignoring why we got here to try to balance the budget by simply
cutting more spending or we can take a realistic look at both spending
and revenues. We need to take a realistic look at both spending and
revenue. A little historical perspective might be helpful.
Federal revenues today are at the lowest share of gross domestic
product in generations, just 14.9 percent. For the past 60 years, that
number has averaged about 18 percent, and during that period we have
balanced the budget five times, and each time revenues totaled 19
percent of gross domestic product or higher.
Past efforts to reduce high deficits have made new revenue a
significant part of the equation. President Reagan presided over three
deficit reduction plans that achieved more than three-quarters of their
deficit reduction through revenue increases. That was President Reagan.
Revenue increases were a major part of his deficit reduction plan. The
deficit reduction legislation that we passed in 1990 under the first
President Bush achieved about one-third of its deficit cuts through
added revenue. President Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction plan was
roughly 55 percent new revenue and 45 percent spending cuts and yielded
our most recent balanced budgets.
Apart from history, the mathematical reality simply is that we must
generate additional revenues. If we are going to reduce the deficit and
do so while avoiding unacceptable cuts to programs that provide for the
common defense and general welfare, revenue must be part of the
discussion.
Many of our Republican colleagues have focused solely on nondefense
discretionary programs for deficit reduction. The simple fact is those
programs are not big enough to allow real deficit reduction. They make
up only about 12 percent of the Federal budget. If we eliminated all
those programs, zeroed them out, we would have done grave harm to
millions of American families, but we still would have huge deficits as
far as the eye can see.
So as the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group, said: For a grand
bargain on deficit reduction, finding a way to bring in some revenue is
a crucial piece of the puzzle.
The nonpartisan Committee for Responsible Federal Budget said that
putting the deficit on a downward path requires looking at ways to
generate additional revenues.
In the balance of my remarks I set out seven different loopholes
which need to be closed. It is only fair that these loopholes be
closed. They are loopholes which cannot be justified. They are
loopholes which I think almost every American would say should not be
in our Tax Code. If we simply will change our Tax Code and reform it
and close these loopholes, we can raise about $1 trillion over 10
years. That is a huge part of what this Joint Select Committee is
required to do.
We have to protect middle-class families from tax increases. We have
to protect them from losing critically important programs, such as
education. We can do that. I have sent a letter to the members--
including my dear friend from Massachusetts--of our select committee
laying out the seven loopholes which can, and should, be closed which
will have an equitable impact. It is only fair these loopholes be
closed, and I have laid out including the use of offshore tax havens to
avoid paying taxes. In this letter that went to all the members of this
Joint Select Committee, I have set forth what these loopholes are.

[[Page S5660]]

So revenue needs to be part of the joint select committee's agenda.
Our deficit reduction plans will require sacrifice not just from
middle-class families but from the corporations and upper income
Americans who have done very well in recent years even as middle-class
incomes have stagnated. In fact, from 1980 to 2008, the share of all
U.S. income going to the top 1 percent of Americans more than doubled,
from 10 percent to 24 percent. I make my proposals with that troubling
fact in mind. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to
the members of the Joint Special Committee be included in the Record
after my remarks.
The letter identifies seven possible steps to eliminate wasteful tax
expenditures and loopholes so as to share the burden of deficit
reduction more broadly. As I say in the letter, ``Those measures would
not only reduce the deficit, but also render the federal tax system
more fair to the millions of honest Americans who pay their taxes.''
Each is practical and doable, each achieves real deficit reduction, and
each protects the programs that defend our nation and support middle-
class families without increasing the tax burden on the investments
that help our economy grow.
I plan in the coming days to lay out these ideas in more detail, but
to explain them briefly.
The first two proposals would close two kinds of unjustified
loopholes that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals at the
expense of working families: offshore tax shelter abuses that cost
American taxpayers billions of dollars a year and a loophole that
forces American taxpayers to subsidize the stock options that
corporations grant to their executives.
The third and fourth would close two Wall Street tax loopholes, the
``carried interest'' loophole that forces Americans to subsidize the
paychecks of hedge fund managers, and a derivatives blended tax rate
loophole that promotes speculation in futures and options, favoring
derivatives over long-term investments that boost economic growth.
The fifth and six would promote tax fairness and ensure shared
sacrifice in reducing the deficit by restoring upper bracket income tax
rates and capital gains tax rates to rates closer to historic norms.
The seventh is an administrative change, eliminating the use of paper
tax liens and creating an electronic database of those liens.
I will discuss these changes in more detail in the days ahead, but
let me emphasize today the role they can play in deficit reduction.
Combined, these common-sense changes could reduce our deficits by $1
trillion over the next 10 years--a sum that would make the committee's
difficult goal, one the Congress and the entire government share, much
more achievable.
For Republicans, adopting some of these ideas will be difficult. I
would say, in empathy and not in anger: Welcome to the club. The
spending cuts that will be necessary for significant deficit reduction
will be difficult as well. They will hurt real American families, in
real ways, and they will damage programs that are at the core of my own
party's philosophy about the important role of government in helping to
create shared prosperity. Democrats will have to compromise on these
cuts. Republicans will also have to compromise, and accept the reality
that revenue must be part of the equation, if we are to do our duty.
The ideas I have proposed, and will discuss in more detail in the
days ahead, outline a path toward such a compromise. It is a fair path.
If Republicans are willing to embrace compromise, we can reduce our
deficit while helping to protect middle-class families from further
economic harm. If Republicans are not willing to compromise, the
automatic cuts involved in sequestration that would be forced upon the
American people will make our country less safe and the livelihoods of
our families less secure. I hope my proposals will help us work
together to avoid that tragic outcome.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a copy of the letter which I sent to the members of that Joint
Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

September 15, 2011.
Hon. Patty Murray
Hon. Max Baucus
Hon. John Kerry
Hon. Jon Kyl
Hon. Rob Portman
Hon. Pat Toomey
Hon. Jeb Hensarling
Hon. Xavier Becerra
Hon. David Camp
Hon. James Clyburn
Hon. Fred Upton
Hon. Chris Van Hollen
Dear Members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction: As you work to construct a proposal to reduce the
federal budget deficit and ensure long-term fiscal stability
for our government, I urge you to eliminate wasteful tax
expenditures and loopholes and restore more balance to the
tax code. These measures would not only reduce the deficit,
but also render the federal tax system more fair to the
millions of honest Americans who pay their taxes.
Here are seven tax reforms that could together raise over
one trillion dollars to reduce our federal deficits.
(1) Target Offshore Tax Abuses. The Stop Tax Haven Abuse
Act (S. 1346) would combat offshore tax abuses. It contains
more than a dozen provisions to shut down offshore tax
loopholes and expose offshore tax cheats, including measures
to penalize offshore financial institutions and jurisdictions
that impede U.S. tax enforcement; stiffen penalties on aiders
and abettors of tax evasion; shift the burden of proof
establishing who controls an offshore entity; stop companies
managed and controlled in the United States from claiming
foreign status; treat U.S. deposits and investments by
offshore subsidiaries of U.S. parent corporations as taxable
repatriated income; and treat credit default swap payments
made from the United States to offshore recipients as taxable
U.S. source income.
(2) End the Corporate Stock Option Loophole. The Ending
Excessive Corporate Deductions for Stock Options Act (S.
1375) would eliminate a corporate loophole that currently
gives special tax treatment to corporations that pay their
executives with stock options. Stock options are the only
type of compensation which, due to a special method for
calculating the tax deduction, often allows corporations to
deduct more than the compensation expense shown in their
books. The latest data available shows that, over a five-year
period, from 2005 to 2009, corporate stock option tax
deductions as a whole exceeded corporate stock option book
expenses by $12 to $61 billion each year, forcing ordinary
taxpayers to subsidize tens of billions of dollars in
excessive executive pay tax deductions. Closing this loophole
would end this unfair tax subsidy of corporate executive
compensation.
(3) End the Carried Interest Loophole. Under current law,
hedge fund and private equity fund managers treat certain
income received from managing investments as ``carried
interest'' taxable at the lower, long-term capital gains
rate, instead of ordinary income tax rates. That income is
not, however, a return on a capital investment made by the
fund managers with their own money, but is instead
compensation for work performed for other investors. Closing
this loophole and treating carried interest as ordinary
income would end an unfair taxpayer subsidy of this Wall
Street income.
(4) End the Derivatives Blended Rate Loophole. Under
current law, profits from some derivative trades are taxed at
a ``blended rate'' comprised of part capital gains and part
ordinary income, even in the case of derivatives held for
minutes. This special tax treatment, enacted in 1981, favors
derivatives like futures over stocks, and encourages bets on
derivatives over direct capital investments that are key to
economic growth. Closing this tax loophole would put a stop
to that market distortion.
(5) Restore Reagan-Era Capital Gains Rates. In recent
years, tax rates have been repeatedly lowered for capital
gains derived from stock, bonds, and derivative transactions
compared to income derived from the salaried work performed
by most Americans. Despite the fact that capital gains rates
currently range between 0% and 15%, our economy has little to
show for it in the way of increased investment or other
economic benefits. At the same time, these lower rates have
greatly increased the deficit. While long-term investments
should receive some degree of favorable treatment, restoring
capital gains rates to Reagan-era levels in line with
ordinary income rates--as several bipartisan deficit
reduction proposals have suggested--would not only make the
federal tax system more fair, but also end a tax expenditure
costing hundreds of billions of dollars over ten years.
(6) Restore Upper Income Tax Brackets. Today, the
wealthiest one percent of Americans take home 24 percent of
all U.S. income, the highest percentage since the Great
Depression. Yet, just a few decades ago, that number was
below 10 percent. Rather than have their share of the tax
burden go up accordingly, the wealthiest few have had their
tax rates lowered several times. Our economy has not grown as
a result of this special treatment, but our deficit has.
Restoring ordinary income rates on those earning over
$250,000 would reduce our deficit by hundreds of billions of
dollars over the next 10 years while restoring balance to the
tax code.

[[Page S5661]]

(7) Eliminate Paper Tax Liens. The Tax Lien Simplification
Act (S. 1390) would create an electronic federal tax lien
registry, available to the public at no cost, in place of the
current antiquated system requiring federal tax liens to be
filed on paper in 4,000 locations across the country. This
simple, good government bill would save administrative costs,
while expediting the removal of tax liens and freeing up an
entire IRS division to tackle the collection of unpaid taxes
that pose an unfair burden on honest taxpayers.
These common sense proposals, if enacted, would
significantly reduce the federal deficit, while removing
economic distortions from the marketplace and ending unfair
tax expenditures and loopholes that disadvantage average
taxpayers. Thank you for your consideration of these
proposals.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I use.
Let me, first of all, thank the Senator from Michigan, the chairman
of the Armed Services Committee, for his comments and particularly for
the recommendations that he is going to make to the supercommittee, to
each of us. I think all of us in the Senate know Senator Levin is one
of the most creative and thoughtful Senators. I am confident that the
suggestions he makes are going to be important ones that are going to
be worthy of consideration.
I know also, because it is something I began to focus on back in the
1980s, this issue of offshore havens is absolutely staggering. I look
forward to this. I know the Senator has led the Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations on that. They have done outstanding work. I am
confident that a lot of that work can be certainly put on the table,
and it ought to be seriously considered. My hope is we can do something
about it.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.

Amendment No. 613

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, one of the amendments we will vote on
shortly is an amendment by Senator Rand Paul with respect to cutting--
or an offset, if you will--of $6.9 billion from the State Department
and USAID in order to fund FEMA disaster relief programs.
First of all, a number of colleagues have come to the Senate floor
over the last couple of days and talked about the principle that has
governed our efforts to provide disaster assistance through all of the
years of this institution. We do not know how to plan on the amounts.
We do not hold people accountable to other programs because of acts of
God, natural disasters that arise suddenly, and the Nation has always
been rich enough and responsible enough to guarantee that we provide
assistance to communities that have been hard hit by a flood, by a
tornado, ravaged by fires--by some natural disaster.
I think the notion that suddenly we are going to start offsetting at
a time when we are engaged in a very delicate balance of offsets with
respect to the regular budgeting process is to try to put in place an
inappropriate principle at an inappropriate time.
That argument has been made considerably. I want to talk for a minute
about the merits of this particular proposal on its face. Let me make
as clear as I can that this amendment would be absolutely devastating
to our foreign aid and development programs. It would decimate agencies
that have already taken huge funding cuts in fiscal year 2011, and it
would completely undermine core national security priorities and
humanitarian commitments.
Senator Paul argues that foreign aid is ``welfare we give to other
nations, many of which are rich nations.'' I disagree with both parts
of that sentence, and I disagree profoundly with the notion that
foreign aid is somehow welfare.
Foreign aid is an investment in our national security; it is not a
gift to other countries. It is a very small investment that provides an
enormous return in so many different ways in terms of advancing the
interests of our country, of our citizens. Because of foreign aid in
many parts of the world we have relationships, and we have programs, we
have initiatives, joint ventures that make Americans safer every single
day. We need to put politics aside and focus on concrete facts.
I know the easiest thing in the world is to walk into a big townhall
meeting and say we ought to be building in--whatever the community you
are in--before we send money somewhere else, and everybody cheers.
There is an instant reaction--easy applause, easy politics, but not
smart politics in terms of the interests of our country.
The fact is all of our foreign aid programs, all of our foreign
policy initiatives, all in the State Department, everything we do in
USAID, all the things we do from sending a diplomat to Baghdad or
Pakistan or Afghanistan, every effort we make to help reverse the
global HIV/AIDS epidemic, all of the things our State Department
engages in make up barely 1 percent of the annual budget.
So often when we go out to those townhalls that are ready to applaud
the idea of just giving the money here, we ask people: How much do you
think we give in foreign aid? And people say: Oh, my God, it is 50
percent of our budget or 10 percent or 5 percent. It is none of those.
It is barely 1 percent.
We spend about $700 billion on our military. By contrast, the
international affairs budget in its entirety is less than one-tenth of
the Pentagon's. A former Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, pointed out,
I think only a year or so ago, that if we took the entire Foreign
Service roster we could barely crew one aircraft carrier in the U.S.
Navy.
I understand we face a budget crisis in our own country. Obviously, I
understand that. We are working hard to address this issue in the new
committee that has been formed by the Congress. But if we cut these
funds now, I guarantee my colleagues we will pay a much stiffer price
later for increased threats to our national security, for loss of
opportunity, for loss of business, for graver crises, all of which will
come as a result of America pulling back.
I remind Senators our foreign policy and development programs have
already been cut to the bone. The final fiscal year 2011 spending
agreement cut $6.5 billion from the international affairs budget. That
is a 10-percent cut. How many agencies took a 10-percent cut? It
happens to also be a 15-percent cut from the President's request.
At a time that we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, when we are
managing turmoil in the Middle East, when we are trying to guarantee
that in Egypt, which we have encouraged to have an uprising, which we
have celebrated for its reach for democracy and for freedom, at a time
when it is trying to do it, are we going to pull the rug out from under
them and say: Go ahead Muslim brotherhood, its pickings are all for
you?
It doesn't make any sense at a time when we are coping with
unprecedented famine in the Horn of Africa, millions of people starving
to death, a global tragedy that challenges the morality of our Nation--
it would be unbelievably extreme and irresponsible to take the approach
that Senator Paul's amendment takes. It would jeopardize our national
security in several important ways. Let me just name a few
specifically.
First of all, it would threaten the State Department and USAID's
ability to serve as a critical partner to the military in postconflict
situations. For instance, in Afghanistan we are working hand in hand,
State Department and Defense Department, in order to be able to
transition to the Afghan forces. This would put those troops at risk,
put that effort at risk. I think it would raise serious questions about
the viability of what we are trying to accomplish.
We are at a critical juncture in those efforts to stabilize
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Cutting our aid to those countries will
impact our military operations. For all of those Senators who want to
get out of Afghanistan faster, we pull the aid out from underneath it,
and we may be getting out in a way we do not want to, or we will make
it longer before we get out in the way that we do want to.
I suggest respectfully Senator Paul said he would ``much rather send
. . . professors around the world than . . . our soldiers.'' I don't
know an American who would not rather do that. We all hope that can
happen as soon as possible. But we cannot just ordain it by saying:
Here it is, here is what we are doing, and change the situations on the
ground. The wish does not become the father to the fact in those
situations.
As we have seen in recent days with the attack on our embassy in
Kabul, there is a lot of work to be done in Afghanistan before our
college deans can

[[Page S5662]]

take over from our district support teams.
This cut would set back progress in creating markets for U.S. goods
and services. Here we are struggling to create jobs in the United
States. One of the best opportunities for jobs is export--export to the
new, emerging middle classes of India, Brazil, Korea, Mexico, China,
other places. We want to sell them those products. But if all of a
sudden we are pulling back our ability to marshal opportunities in
those markets, if we reduce the ability of the U.S. businesses to get
those opportunities, we diminish our own efforts to strengthen our
economy.

We don't just face a budget deficit crisis, we also face a jobs
deficit. In the face of global competition, our growth in our exports
is directly tied to our ability to create new American markets. Money
we spend helping to stabilize emerging economies has an amazing impact
on our own economy, and that has been proven for all the years,
certainly, since the end of World War II.
The Paul amendment would also lead to a $1 billion cut in our battle
against global AIDS. PEPFAR, the President's program on which George
Bush--President George Bush, Republican--worked with us on the Foreign
Relations Committee, a program Senator Helms and Senator Frist and I
and others originally developed, a program that currently supports 3.5
million people on lifesaving HIV/AIDS treatment, a reduction this size
to 2011 funds would mean that around 1 million people would be thrown
off of those treatments, dramatically reducing the numbers of lives
saved through this program.
We are a country that has prided ourselves on our willingness to live
our values. The Judeo-Christian ethic is one of charity and one of
concern for the poor, the downtrodden, the sick, and so forth. It is
hard for me to understand how we can take an ethic of our private lives
that everybody talks about so pronouncedly around here and look at the
fact that there are some folks in America who tithe 10 percent of their
income, or others who give a fixed percentage of their income in order
to help the world, and here we are, as a matter of national policy,
going to put 1 million people at risk from a program we are currently
saving lives on? I don't understand that kind of value system.
It would derail our efforts to forestall famine in the Horn of
Africa, and that would trigger long-lasting suffering and destabilize
the neighboring countries such as Yemen, Kenya, and Somalia. In Somalia
alone approximately 3.2 million people are in need of immediate
lifesaving assistance, a half million children are acutely
malnourished, and more than 29,000 children under the age of 5 have
tragically died.
This planet knows how to feed people. Rich countries have an
obligation to try to do that. Our obligation is de minimis. We should
not come in here installing a new principle all of a sudden, for the
first time ever, saying we have to offset money to pay for emergency
assistance to our communities at the expense of young kids who are
starving in another part of the world.
I hope my colleagues will recognize this amendment is not the right
way to approach this. It would have a negligible impact on our budget
deficit, and its real impact on our security would be enormous.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I know the vote has been scheduled, but I ask unanimous
consent 2 minutes be provided prior to the amendment votes and 4
minutes prior to final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Amendment No. 610

Who yields time?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, how much time before the vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to speak, if I could, before the time is out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, in a few minutes, because the two
amendments have been debated extensively this afternoon, I want to
thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his strong objection to one of
the amendments and the eloquent way he expressed the feelings of so
many of us who will be voting with Senator Kerry against the Paul
amendment.
Let me put this up, as I have been using this all week. The
underlying bill we will be voting on in a few minutes will give the
Senate the opportunity to vote for disaster relief now. It is the only
vehicle available to us in the Senate to vote for relatively full
disaster relief for the year 2012 now. I want people to realize, as
they are considering how they are going to vote, we received 61 votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand we are out of time. I will speak later.
Again, it gives us an opportunity to vote for disaster relief now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield back the time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Webb
Wicker

NAYS--45

Akaka
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kohl

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are
45. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.

Paul Amendment No. 613

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes of debate on the Paul amendment No. 613. Who yields time?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be an
additional 1 minute for Senator Lindsey Graham to speak on his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my State was devastated by Hurricane
Irene, and I am going to do everything possible to help Vermonters get
the aid they need. But I strongly oppose the amendment offered by the
junior Senator from Kentucky.
First, it is a terrible idea to cut critical national security
programs to offset funding for emergency disasters. It would set a
precedent and make it infinitely harder to help our States cope with
these crises, whether it is Katrina or whether it is earthquakes or no
matter what it is.
Disasters strike unexpectedly. The funding to recover and rebuild is
not built into the budget. They strike Republican and Democratic States
alike. To say in this: Well, why don't we cut out our State Department
or our embassies, so we cut out the aid the United States gives to
Haiti--we live in a global economy--this amendment makes no sense.

[[Page S5663]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
This is very important. We are broke at home, and there are a lot of
things we could and should be doing for our States. I want to try to
get our fiscal house in order, but we have to defend this country. The
foreign operations account is national security in another form. If you
just do not always want to bomb people, you need to help people help
themselves, and the money in this account will allow people to stand up
against terrorism and do things America has been doing for a long time;
that is, helping people who really would be better off for the
experience and have a kindness toward us.
If you think Israel needs a friend now, this would hurt our
relationship in terms of support to Israel. So all of those in this
body who want to make sure Israel gets the right message at a time of
need, please vote against this amendment because it will hurt our
relationship.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I think we ought to make just one
clarification of fact. Israel gets all their foreign aid in the
beginning of the year. They get it differently than any other country.
This amendment will not affect any funding to Israel. This funding will
take away a percentage. It is about 10 percent of foreign aid.
Foreign aid or welfare is opposed by 77 percent of Americans. Even if
you thought it was a good idea to give welfare to foreign countries,
you do not have it. So you are borrowing this money from China or you
are printing it up and you are adding to the debt. Our country faces a
debt crisis. We are borrowing $40,000 a second. I think it is unwise,
when bridges are falling down and being closed in Louisville, KY, to
send money to other countries, particularly money we are borrowing and
printing.
I urge the support of my amendment to eliminate the 10 percent of
foreign aid. I think it is a very reasonable proposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Paul amendment No. 613.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 20, nays 78, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.]

YEAS--20

Barrasso
Burr
Coburn
DeMint
Enzi
Grassley
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson (WI)
Lee
Moran
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--78

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Heller
Kohl
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 20, the nays are
78. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Before I recite the unanimous consent request that I hope
will be approved, what we intend to do is have a vote on final passage
of the joint resolution now before us, 10 minutes of debate, there will
be votes on two amendments and then final passage. So we have four more
votes and we should be finished.
I wish to express my appreciation to everyone. You will note in my
last two speeches I made before the Senate yesterday and today, I said
a lot of nice things about Republicans, the reason being that is how we
have accomplished a lot. We got a decent bill from the House and we
have been able to move forward on this legislation.
The Republican leader and I had quite a long conversation here in the
well. We have a lot of work to do, but we want to do it together. So
the cooperation we have had this week by both Democrats and Republicans
has been extremely important.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 2887

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to
be determined by me, after consultation with the Republican leader, the
Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 167; that the only
first-degree amendments in order to the bill be the following, the text
of which are at the desk: Paul regarding limitation of highway trust
fund; Paul regarding FAA funding levels; that there be up to 10 minutes
of debate on the amendments and the bill to be equally divided between
Senators Paul and the majority leader or their designees, prior to
votes in relation to the amendments in the order listed; that there be
no amendments in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes;
that the amendments be subject to a 60-vote threshold; that upon
disposition of the amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on the
passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; that there be no other
amendments, points of order or motions in order to the bill other than
the budget points of order and the applicable motion to waive; that the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in
urging the Senate to adopt this resolution and replenish the disaster
relief fund without further delay.
To so many people struck by disaster this year, this fund is a life
preserver to help carry them over until they can get back on their feet
and begin the long, hard road to recovery. Without assistance from this
fund, many disaster survivors would have no place to live due to
damaged and exposed homes; critical commuting routes would remain
impassable; and debris would mar communities and morale for months on
end.
We are not just talking about a few disaster areas. This year seems
like a record for major disasters, affecting all parts of our country.
Nearly every State has sought and received assistance, which is why the
fund is now perilously low. It has dwindled to about $377 million. At
this rate, Senate appropriators say the fund may last for just days.
As I speak, wildfires are still blazing through drought stricken
central Texas. The worst wildfire in Texas history closed area schools
down last week, 1,500 homes were destroyed in hundreds of fires, and
tens of thousands of acres have been scorched.
My home State of Connecticut was among those affected when Hurricane
Irene swept ashore at the end of August, bringing gale force winds and
tidal surges that knocked out power for days in many areas, damaged
millions of dollars worth of property, and left whole communities under
water. And when Irene struck, it didn't just touch down in one State or
two. It sideswiped practically the entire eastern seaboard from North
Carolina to Maine.
In Connecticut alone, the early preliminary and therefore probably
low estimates of damage from this single disaster are around $300
million.
These major calamities only take us back to the last week of August.
In June and July, record flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri
Rivers displaced thousands of people and ravaged land throughout the
West and Midwest.

[[Page S5664]]

A string of tornadoes ripped through the Southeast and Midwest in
April, killing hundreds of people, destroying countless homes and
businesses and costing billions of dollars. A third of Joplin, MO, was
wiped out, and that community continues to struggle to rebuild.
In February, the Midwest and Northeast were buried under 2 feet of
snow.
That is not an exhaustive list, but the point is that these disasters
have been equal opportunity ravagers, affecting almost every State in
the Union this year. In fact, the President has declared this year a
state of emergency in 47 States! Only Nevada, West Virginia, and
Michigan have been spared.
So the replenishment of the disaster relief fund should not divide us
along partisan lines. Nor should it divide us among geographic lines,
or city versus rural lines. This fund has been tapped by almost every
one of our States, and I know that the people of Connecticut were
relieved when they learned that the Federal Government would help them
get their lives back on track. I suspect the citizens of every other
State that received disaster relief funds were similarly grateful.
Frankly, it doesn't really matter if 2 States or 47 States have been
declared disaster areas. Helping people in need is what our Government
does. The whole point of a federal government is to handle challenges
that individual States, much less individual communities, cannot. The
defense of our Nation is first and foremost among these Federal
responsibilities, but so is providing aid to people and States
following a natural or man-made disaster that takes as heavy a toll as
this year's disasters have.
Congress has a long history of supplementing the disaster relief fund
to cover those in need. From 2003 to 2010, $12.3 billion was
appropriated through the regular appropriations process. But six times
that much--$73.4 billion--was appropriated through supplemental
funding.
It should be noted that only a small part of the administration's
request seeks supplemental funding. The bulk of the request is for
fiscal year 2012, and the aid requested constitutes disaster relief
within the meaning of the Budget Control Act, which allows
discretionary spending levels to be raised up to a certain limit--a
limit that is not breached by the administration's request.
Already FEMA has had to start prioritizing its relief activities so
that those in most immediate need can be assisted. In other words,
longer term recovery projects not yet in the FEMA pipeline have been
put on hold. That is how low the reserves are in the disaster recovery
fund.
Current and future survivors will continue to receive assistance to
help replace or repair damages to property or cover other personal
losses. States will also continue to receive reimbursement for debris
removal, emergency response and protective measures, and other critical
needs. But FEMA has essentially had to begin rationing aid. That is
just plain wrong. The people who suffer in one disaster are no more or
less entitled to aid than those who suffer in another disaster. We are
a humane country, not a selectively humane country.
As I said when I toured flooded homes on the Connecticut shore 2
weeks ago, the Federal Government does not default on its obligations--
whether we are talking about debts to foreign nations or promised aid
to its own citizens in need, through no fault of their own.
I have faith my colleagues will come together across party lines, as
we have done so many times in the past, to replenish FEMA's disaster
relief fund, which was designed to help make people whole again after
major disasters.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we soon will vote on a measure that
includes two significant pieces of legislation. I support passage of
both--one that upholds our duty to assist Americans coping with natural
disasters, and one that upholds our duty as Americans to speak out
against oppression and abuse around the world.
The first measure provides emergency supplemental funding for
disaster relief and recovery efforts. Congress must do its job to
appropriate emergency funding for disaster response and recovery
quickly and thoughtfully, as we have done numerous times in the past. I
will vote for this measure because the $6.9 billion in emergency
supplemental funding for disaster relief and recovery is necessary to
help families and businesses bounce back from catastrophic loss, to
rebuild damaged infrastructure, to respond to emergencies, to restore
forests and watersheds damaged by disaster, and to improve flood
control structures. Importantly, this legislation does not set the bad
precedent of requiring an offset in order to help communities and
families when disaster strikes.
The second measure would renew sanctions against Burma by extending
the import restrictions put in place under the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act of 2003.
While the Burmese government has shown some recent signs of a
willingness to implement meaningful reforms, legitimate questions
regarding its commitment to these reforms as well as continuing
concerns about the ongoing detention of political prisoners and about
serious human rights violations justify the renewal of these sanctions.
I urge my colleagues to approve this important measure as a
reaffirmation of our concern for those here at home who are struck by
disaster, and for those abroad who suffer under oppression.

Amendment No. 602

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes of debate on Reid amendment No. 602. Who yields time?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I would like to speak for final
passage. I would like to speak last.
Is there anyone who wants to speak in opposition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there someone to speak in opposition?
Ms. LANDRIEU. If not, then I will take the time to close. I wanted to
say thanks to several Members, many Members on my side who have helped
this week to clarify this issue and to build support for disaster
funding for the 48 States that are currently experiencing devastation.
I wish to thank Members on the other side of the aisle, particularly
Senators Blunt, Vitter, Rubio, others, Senator Snowe who have left
their voice and their vote to help us get to this point. I particularly
wish to thank Senator Blunt for spending 15 minutes on the floor today
saying how crucial this is not only to his State of Missouri but to the
whole country.
I wish to thank the Members on my side, Senators Leahy and Schumer
and Hagan and others who have helped so much this week--Senator
Shaheen, who has been at all the press conferences, Senator Sanders.
Let me say this is the only vehicle--the only vehicle--we have before
us to do long-term full funding for the disaster relief. This bill will
provide help to Nebraska, to Minot, ND, to New York, to the east coast,
to Tuscaloosa, AL, Joplin, MO.
If we do not vote for this, the DRF funding will be empty. This money
gives us not only additional funding for disaster relief, but it also
provides an additional $1.1 billion for the Corps of Engineers and
funding for a few other programs that are essential to rebuilding.
I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Since there is no opposition that is going to speak, I
would like to take those 2 minutes as well.
This is a very important vote. I know there are some people who think
we should have gone through a regular process. The last time we went
through a regular process, with individual votes coming to the floor by
October 1, was 1994. It is 2011. As the appropriator, the chair of this
committee, I knew that was not a way to go to bring quick relief to the
disaster victims who need help.
So the stand-alone approach, sending a strong vote from the Senate
today, will help us negotiate with the House. They have a different
idea. I happen not to agree with their idea. They are entitled to their
own idea. We are entitled to our own idea, and our own idea is with
Democrats and Republicans voting yes on this Burma sanctions bill, we
can send reliable, long-term funding.

[[Page S5665]]

In closing, let me tell you what the alternative is if you vote no.
If you vote no on this and think you can go home and tell your people
you helped them, you are going to be faced next week with a vote to
give your people 6 weeks of disaster funding. That is how long the
continuing resolution lasts.
Believe me, having had to rebuild a good part of our State, you
cannot do it 6 weeks at a time. I strongly suggest you give a strong
vote for disaster victims, long-term funding they can rely on, and we
negotiate with the House next week.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The question is on agreeing to
the Reid amendment No. 602.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 135 Leg.]

YEAS--62

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Hoeven
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--37

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Wicker

NOT VOTING--1

Kohl

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 62, the nays are 37.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the joint resolution to
be read a third time.
The joint resolution was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the joint
resolution, H.J. Res. 66, as amended, is passed, and the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 66), as amended, was passed, as
follows:

H.J. Res. 66

Resolved, That the resolution from the House of
Representatives (H.J. Res. 66) entitled ``Joint resolution
approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.'', do pass with
the following amendment:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

DIVISION A--RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS UNDER BURMESE FREEDOM AND
DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003

SECTION 1. RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS UNDER BURMESE
FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003.

(a) In General.--Congress approves the renewal of the
import restrictions contained in section 3(a)(1) and section
3A (b)(1) and (c)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act
of 2003.
(b) Rule of Construction.--This division shall be deemed to
be a ``renewal resolution'' for purposes of section 9 of the
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This division shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this joint resolution or July 26, 2011,
whichever occurs earlier.

DIVISION B--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide emergency
supplemental appropriations for disaster relief for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other
purposes, namely:

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Farm Service Agency

emergency conservation program

For ``Emergency Conservation Program'' for expenses
resulting from a major disaster designation pursuant to the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)), $78,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the amount in this paragraph
shall not become available for obligation until October 1,
2011: Provided further, That such amount is designated by
Congress as being for disaster relief pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), as amended.

emergency forest restoration program

For ``Emergency Forest Restoration Program'', for expenses
resulting from a major disaster designation pursuant to the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)), $49,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the amount in this paragraph
shall not become available for obligation until October 1,
2011: Provided further, That such amount is designated by
Congress as being for disaster relief pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1958 (Public Law 99-177), as amended.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

emergency watershed protection program

For ``Emergency Watershed Protection Program'' for expenses
resulting from a major disaster designation pursuant to the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)), $139,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the amount in this paragraph
shall not become available for obligation until October 1,
2011: Provided further, That such amount is designated by
Congress as being for disaster relief pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), as amended.

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economic Development Administration

economic development assistance programs

For an additional amount for ``Economic Development
Assistance Programs'' for expenses related to disaster
relief, long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure
in areas that received a major disaster designation in 2011
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)), $135,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That the
amount in this paragraph shall not become available for
obligation until October 1, 2011: Provided further, That
such amount is designated by Congress as being for disaster
relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended.

TITLE III

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

mississippi river and tributaries

For an additional amount for ``Mississippi River and
Tributaries'' for expenses resulting from a major disaster
designation pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)),
$890,177,300, to remain available until expended for repair
of damages to Federal projects: Provided, That the amount in
this paragraph shall not become available for obligation
until October 1, 2011: Provided further, That the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works shall provide a monthly
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate detailing the allocation and
obligation of these funds, beginning not later than 60 days
after enactment of this Act: Provided further, That each
amount in this paragraph is designated by Congress as being
for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(Public Law 99-177), as amended.

operation and maintenance

For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance'',
$60,000,000, to remain available until expended to dredge
navigation channels and repair damage to Corps projects
nationwide related to natural disasters: Provided, That the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works shall provide
a monthly report to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate detailing the
allocation and obligation of these funds, beginning not later
than 60 days after enactment of this Act: Provided further,
That the amount in this paragraph is designated by Congress
as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section
3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5 (112th Congress) and to section 403(a)
of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance''
for expenses resulting from a major disaster designation
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)) to dredge
navigation channels and repair damage to Corps projects
nationwide related to natural disasters, $88,003,700, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the amount
in this paragraph shall not become available for obligation
until October 1, 2011: Provided further, That the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works shall provide a monthly
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House

[[Page S5666]]

of Representatives and the Senate detailing the allocation
and obligation of these funds, beginning not later than 60
days after enactment of this Act: Provided further, That
each amount in this paragraph is designated by Congress as
being for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(Public Law 99-177), as amended.

flood control and coastal emergencies

For an additional amount for ``Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies'', as authorized by section 5 of the Act of
August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), for necessary expenses to
prepare for flood, hurricane and other natural disasters and
support emergency operations, repair and other activities in
response to recent natural disasters as authorized by law,
$244,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
shall provide a monthly report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
detailing the allocation and obligation of these funds,
beginning not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act:
Provided further, That the amount in this paragraph is
designated by Congress as being for an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5 (112th Congress) and
to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
For an additional amount for ``Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies'', for expenses resulting from a major disaster
designation pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)) and
as authorized by section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33
U.S.C. 701n), for necessary expenses to prepare for flood,
hurricane and other natural disasters and support emergency
operations, repair and other activities in response to recent
natural disasters as authorized by law, $66,387,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the amount
in this paragraph shall not become available for obligation
until October 1, 2011: Provided further, That the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works shall provide a monthly
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate detailing the allocation and
obligation of these funds, beginning not later than 60 days
after enactment of this Act: Provided further, That each
amount in this paragraph is designated by Congress as being
for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(Public Law 99-177), as amended.

TITLE IV

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

disaster relief

For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'',
$500,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the amount in this paragraph is designated by Congress
as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section
3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5 (112th Congress) and to section 403(a)
of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
For an additional amount for the ``Disaster Relief'' for
expenses resulting from a major disaster designation pursuant
to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)), $4,600,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the amount in this
paragraph shall not become available for obligation until
October 1, 2011: Provided further, That such amount is
designated by Congress as being for disaster relief pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), as amended.
This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental
Disaster Relief Appropriations Resolution, 2011''.

TITLE V

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Community Planning and Development

community development fund

For an additional amount for the ``Community Development
Fund'', for necessary expenses related to disaster relief,
long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure,
housing, and economic revitalization resulting from a major
disaster designation pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5122(2)) in 2011, $100,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for activities authorized under title I of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-
383): Provided, That the amount in this paragraph shall not
become available for obligation until October 1, 2011:
Provided further, That such amount is designated by Congress
as being for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 (Public Law 99-177), as amended: Provided further, That
funds shall be awarded directly to the State or unit of
general local government at the discretion of the Secretary:
Provided further, That prior to the obligation of funds a
grantee shall submit a plan to the Secretary detailing the
proposed use of all funds, including criteria for eligibility
and how the use of these funds will address long-term
recovery and restoration of infrastructure: Provided
further, That funds provided under this heading may be used
by a State or locality as a matching requirement, share, or
contribution for any other Federal program: Provided
further, That such funds may not be used for activities
reimbursable by, or for which funds are made available by,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Army Corps of
Engineers: Provided further, That funds allocated under this
heading shall not adversely affect the amount of any formula
assistance received by a State or subdivision thereof under
the Community Development Fund: Provided further, That a
State or subdivision thereof may use up to 5 percent of its
allocation for administrative costs: Provided further, That
in administering the funds under this heading, the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development may waive, or specify
alternative requirements for, any provision of any statute or
regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with
the obligation by the Secretary or the use by the recipient
of these funds or guarantees (except for requirements related
to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the
environment), upon a request by a State or subdivision
thereof explaining why such waiver is required to facilitate
the use of such funds or guarantees, if the Secretary finds
that such waiver would not be inconsistent with the overall
purpose of title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register any waiver of any statute or
regulation that the Secretary administers pursuant to title I
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 no later
than 5 days before the effective date of such waiver.
This division may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental
Disaster Relief Appropriations Resolution, 2011''.

____________________