[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13723-13736]
[From the U.S. 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substitute amendment No. 602, be withdrawn, and the following 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; 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

[[Page 13724]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 13725]]

  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 
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

[[Page 13726]]

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.
  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

[[Page 13727]]

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. 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--

[[Page 13728]]

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.


                          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.

[[Page 13729]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 13730]]

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.
       (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.

[[Page 13731]]

  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 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.

[[Page 13732]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 13733]]

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.
  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

[[Page 13734]]

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.
  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

[[Page 13735]]


     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 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.

[[Page 13736]]

       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''.

                          ____________________