the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you. i wish to thank the snorn from michigan. the presiding officer: the senator -- the senate is in a quorum call. mr. brown: i ask to dispense with the quorum call. officer without objection. mr. brown: i ask to speak in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i was listening to the senator from california describe how american taxpayers pay for all kinds of public facilities, from utility to schools to water systems, to energy production in other countries around the world, and there is rarely -- actually, according to senator boxer, there's never objection to that from the other side of the aisle. but when the president of the united states wants to use --

wants to do that same kind of construction in the united states of america, there seem to be objections. and i was taken by that. one, because it's true; second, because it's pretty unbelievable that when the president descri s that working with the congress, calls on congress to pass legislation tpass so wecan renon cleveland or toledo that some conservative members of congress in both houses say we really can't do that even though want to do that by closing the wall street tax loopholes, by taking away oil company subsidy, by closing the incentive -- tax incentives that are in federal law now that encourage companies to leave hamtramck or leave youngstown and go to slang high.

i was on a conference call yesterday with school principals in ohio and a principal from zanesville, a moderate-sized community in eastern ohio, who had been a principal in a nearby ruler school district some years before -- rural school district some years before was talking to me about how important school renovation is. the average school building in the united states is 40 years old. we put such -- we would put so much effort in the 19 sighs -- e 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, to new water and new sewer systems and all the infrastructure we built in this country after world war i i, bipartisan, helped our country grow, putting workers, putting people to work, doing the construction. putting people to work doing the manufacturing that would -- for materials used in the

construction, and putting people to work because we built this infrastructure that kroger company in cincinnati needs to move its produce and other things for their stores all over the midwest, and the kind of infrastructure we built that helps us with economic development. so the president was in columbus yesterday talking -- or two days ago talking about school construction, how important that is. when i'm talking to the school principal who used to work in maysville, he told me how several years ago his school building was old and di decrepit and the test schools weren't very good for the students. he said, after they built a new school building and put these students in a place that they could learn bertd, that sent a message to these students that we tea care about indication ede

test scores won't's went up. we tell our students in this country -- we tell our young people, education is the most important thing in our country, and then we send them to schools that are not -- too this adon't look so good. i just wonder why -- what students think when we put this premium on education but then we don't act on it. when he talked about leaking roofs and hold on the walls, talked about dark and dank kind of hallways and auditoriums, the lack of technology, and so what the president is trying to do and what senator boxer was talking about more with aviation and highways, but schools also, is that when we invest in school reinvation, it means -- one, it means jobs immediately for carpenters and electricians and plumbers and laborers and all

kind of people. and it means jobs immediately for the people producing these -- this steecialtion the manufacturers and the cement and the insulation. we have the biggest insulation company in the united states is in newark, ohio. it means better schools for our kids and long-range economic growth, long-range -- better environment for us os as a country. that's what troubles me so much, as senator boxer said. we're putting money in these things and schools and water facilities and all in iraq and afghanistan -- and i'm okay with that if it serves our national interests; but there were no objections to that from conservative politicians but they object to doing that at home in schools in chillicothe and in lima and youngstown and akron. mr. president, that's it's so important that we move forward on the school construction jobs

bill, $1 billion in investment in school construction envation, creates about 10,000 jobs, and those 10,000 jobs are mostly middle-class jobs in manufacturing and the trades actually doing the construction and the building. it makes so much sense. i'm hopeful as the president goes around the country explaining it, that my colleagues decide, yeah, maybe we ought to actually focus on jobs and dot right thing. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the leadership is time is reserved. it's already been done apparently. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.j. res. 66, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 154, h.j. res. 66, approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the burmese freedom and democracy act of 2003. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to commit with the exception of the reid of nevada substitute number 60 2-b withdrawn and in fought amendments be the only ones in order to the reid amendment e6 02: 610, and 6136789 that the time until 4:00 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees and that this will be for debate on amendments and joint resolution with 30 minutes

for senator coburn and 15 minutes for senator paul. this 15 minutes would come from the republican leader's tievment aat the senate will vote on the amendments in the following order: 613 and 610, there be no points of order prior to the votes. amendments not be subject to division and that all the amendments being subject to a 50-vote threshold. the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the taifnl if the reid substitute amendment as and, if aimed, achieve 50 votes, the joinlts resolution be agreed to, the if the reid substitute does not receive 60 voted, the joint resolution be placed back on the calendar. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. levin: the majority leader? mr. reid: i am going to ask that there be another call of the quorum, but and in doing so i would ask that the time run equally with both the democrats and the republicans. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

objection. mr. coburn: i ask that amendment number 610 be considered as pending, brought up and read. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, poses an amendment numbered 610 to amendment numbered 602. mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. 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 that our country has experienced over the past six months, and i don't think there is a large disagreement that we ought to take care of of the areas that are the federal responsibility in the respective states for the extreme weather tragedies as

well as fire-related tragedies that have been experienced by a multitude of states. the question, however, 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 efficient that we can't cut something else and make a choice about how we pay for it? and the bill as brought forward has no pay-for at all. in other words, the assumption is if we pass this bill, we will go and borrow approximately approximately $7 billion more in the international markets. and what i would put forward is that we know we have plenty of areas that we can cut now that are not effective, not efficient, that are wasteful, that are duplicative, and we

would not have to borrow that additional money. the easiest thing in the world is to spend somebody else's money and what we're doing with this bill by not paying for it is actually asking our grandchildren to pay for an obligation that we have today. and the amendment that i have considered -- have asked to be called up is nearly identical to an amendment that this body passed by a vote of 64-36 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. and this isn't the only area where we could go but this is an area where we've already as a body agreed to, is an effective

way to pay and save money and so we could easily find $7 billion by eliminating multiple programs that accomplish the same thing. and so let me just give some examples of what the g.a.o. showed. the department of defense and the v.a. are both creating new medical records systems as we speak, both paying for independent contractors doing the same thing. they're going to have intertwined medical records ultimately, and yet we don't need to set up two different programs. so by doing that you could save a couple of billion dollars. just by having one program for both v.a. and d.o.d. we have multiple contracts according to the g.a.o. in terms of energy, interagency and government areawide contracts that can -- that actually

increase our procurement costs would where we could consolidate those and have one contract and actually save money but we haven't done that. that's something that can be done by the o.m.b. at our direction. the other area which is extremely interesting and the president's already agreed to this, they're already starting to do it but we could do it much faster and save a significant amount of money, we can save $150 billion to $200 billion over the next 10 years just by consolidating data centers. we initially had some 500 of those and i think we're up to around 2,000. we had 432 in 1998 and 2,000 federal data centers in 2010. and what everybody knows as we could could cut that by about half, not have any change in the effectiveness and save about

$150 billion over the next 10 years. so what this amendment does, it identifies the areas listed in the g.a.o. report and instructs the o.m.b. to find those that are most likely to be achievable to come to $7 billion. we have agreed to do this on 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 won't. but by make this one plea: in august we left here after passing a debt limit increase, the largest debt limit increase we've ever incurred in segments, and said we were going to start living within our means. we've created a sprerk to -- super committee to find

$1.5 trillion over the next ten years in savings and while they're doing that, if we decide to pass a emergency supplemental bill for fema, and don't pay for it, we're going to be working exactly the opposite direction of what we said we needed to do. and so the facts are -- is we're almost skits owe againic. -- schizophrenic. we say we need to cut spending and we're going to spend spend $7 billion more but don't want to find cuts 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're addressing a problem, on the other hand we're ignoring the problem. it would behoove the confidence level in this institution if in fact we tried to pay and found the courage and the will power

to say if we're going to spend additional money, we're going to create priorities, and we're actually going to eliminate spending somewhere else to be able to pay for this to do this more important thing. i have trouble understanding even when i talk to our colleagues privately why we wouldn't do this. why we wouldn't pay for this $7 billion by reducing wasteful spending elsewhere. and so as we -- as we go to the vote, at 4:00, the question that people ask is why was it okay to cut the spending from these departments back in april but it's not okay to cut the spending now? 64 of our colleagues voted to cut this spending in april. and so, you know, i know several are opposed to paying

for this, but we're in a new day. we live in a new world. there will come -- the oklahoma chamber of commerce was up here this week and the title of their meeting was "new realities." well, the new reality is we're going to run to the end of the time in which we can borrow money or afford to pay the interest rate on the money that we can borrow. and the discipline that we need is to live within our means. and this is one step that number one, will be the right thing to do for future generations, it's the right thing to do to build confidence in our institution, and it's the right thing to do to eliminate waste and duplication in the federal government. and with that, i'll yield back the floor and note the absence of a quorum, and make a point that i will talk again on this prior to the vote. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment number 613. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes an amendment number 613 to amendment numbered 602. on pain 12 between lines 11 and 12 insert the following, title 6 -- mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent we dispense with the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: mr. president, this amendment 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 just simply keep spending money we don't have. i think the mark of a good legislator is making priorities and if you choose to spend some

money on an emergency you take the money from somewhere else in the budget. we've proposed in this amendment to take the money from foreign aid. when you ask the american people do you think we should be spending welfare to other countries, or building bridges in other countries when our bridges are falling down in this country, 77% of the american people think we shouldn't be sending money overseas when we have problems here at home. so this would take unspent foreign aid money from this year and apply it towards the disaster funding. it would also take some unspent money from the state department. but i think what it is it's responsible budgeting. it's basically taking money from another area and spending it and not adding to our debt. there are repercussions to the debt we add. i tell people the debt has a face. every time you go 0 the store and your gas or food prices are

rising, the reason your 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, you diminish the value of your dollar and your gas prices rise and your food prices rise. also economists have said that up to a million jobs a year are being lost to finance our debt. so i would ask that we pay for these natural disasters, we take the money from elsewhere in our budget. mr. president, i also rise in support of senator coburn's plea not to -- not to target the transportation funds. right now we're asking that highway funds, 10% of them, go to beautification projects, turtle tunnels, movie theaters. well, mr. president, in our state of kentucky we have a bridge that was closed down this week, the sherman mittin bridge, three bridges in

louisville, one is closed down. traffic is stacked up for hours and you're telling me we need to have turtle tunnels. okay, something is seriously wrong with government when we're forcing state governments to spend 10% of their transportation money on turtle tunnels, white squirrel parks, and movie theaters. we have another bridge that's needed in the northern part of our state, brent-spence bridge where dwree dree from the bridge -- debris from the bridge is falling. we had a bridge in minneapolis that fell into the river and killed 13 people. we need as a nation to set our priorities but i think it's incorrect and a real problem that we're telling people they have to take 10% of the transportation funds and put it into bike paths. look, i'm a bicyclist and i like bike paths as much as anybody but when bridges are falling into the river, when a major metropolitan area like louisville, kentucky, has one-third of their bridge capacity closed down because the bridge is dangerous to travel

on, these are emergency problems. it also buys into what i'm talking about with the foreign aid. we cannot send welfare to other countries that we don't have. we're not sending them money that is from our savings. we're sending money that we're borrowing from china, or that we're printing up. there are ramifications to this debt. we are borrowing money at $40,000 a second. there are ramifications to this borrowing. the debt has a face. it's not just an empty number. when they say our national debt is $14 trillion or we're adding $1.5 trillion to the debt every year there are ramifications to that and it has a face. the face is unemployment. the face is people losing jobs. you see it in the grocery store with your prices rising. the debt has ramifications. in europe, you're seeing the end stages of this in some countries. you're seeing chaos and rioting in the streets.

we had rioting in london recently. we've had rioting in greece portugal, spain. all of these countries are tumbling under a burden of debt and it's been predicted that this is coming to the united states. it is coming soon. it is a con teenage obvious -- con contagion of debt that is sweeping the world and it is all pyramided on the u.s. dollar. once upon a time banks held the dollar as reserve. when the dollar tumblets or we have trouble paying for our debt there will be massive worldwide problems. we're 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 didn't work. two more -- 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. so recently the president came over to giant session of congress and presented to us the son of stimulus. the son of a stimulus that did not work in the first place. and he says well, we're just going to tax those rich people. well, rich people hire poor people. we most of us have jobs because rich people hired us. they're talking about adding $400 billion in new taxes on those who make $200 -- $200,000 or year a or or more. the rich are paying for the income tax, 47% of americans pay no income tax. so half of americans are already paying for all of the income tax, the bush tax cuts made the tax code more progressive because they dropped off more people from the lower end. if you look at those who make more than $200,000 a year, 3%

of the public. they earn 30% of the income, and they pay 50% of the income tax. so if you're say -- saying that the tax code needs to be made more fair, it would probably be that you would have to make the tax code less progressive. but the bottom line is if they thought or i thought it would help people, we could do it. it's going to hurt people. the head of the congressional budget office is an objective spokesman who analyzes government. he testified before the super committee 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. pity one group, lassen have i, pity one group against another gets us nowhere. years ago, we tried this. we said we'll have a special tax on those who own yachts. well, guess who lost their jobs. the men and women making $40,000 and 50,000 a year making the

yachts lost their jobs. it doesn't work, it's unhealthy, it's not good for america to blame one class of people versus the other. we want to lift up everyone in america. we want a thriving and growing economy. when we lowered tax rates in the 1980's, we had 6% and 7% growth in a year. we're at 1% growth and we look like we're heading in the wrong direction. they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. this new jobs plan by the president is the son of stimulus, the son of a stimulus that didn't work the first time, that when you calculated it cost cost $400,000 per job. it didn't work. we shouldn't be doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. i would say in conclusion that my amendment here is the responsible budgetary amendment

and it pays for the new disaster funding. if you wish to help people, you think your 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. so i urge support, 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. so i would ask serious consideration of that. i would also ask serious consideration of senator coburn's proposal that when we have bridges crumbling in our country, that we not force states to build turtle tunnels, squirrel sanctuaries and movie theaters. we have number on the crumblinge need to get this through and we have to say we're not going to

force the states to decide they have to have these beautification projects. thank you, mr. president, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

we're working to try to resolve an impasse that we have, but we are not there yet, and i wanted to be clear with my colleagues what my intent was and if we can work the problems out, i'm happy to try to do that. but i have three separate unanimous consent requests that i'm going to be asking for. one will separate out the f.a.a. bill, pass it and send it to the house. another will separate out the transportation bill, eliminating the transportation enhancement component of it and send it to the house, and another one that eliminates the transportation component of the combined bill and sends it back to the house,

and i understand the leader is concerned with those but felt i would exercise my right to offer those unanimous consents. so therefore i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 2887, the house-passed f.a.a. service transportation reauthorization bill, and that my amendment at the desk related to a four-month f.a.a. extension be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, any statements relating to the record be printed -- 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 surface transportation reauthorization bill, that the coburn amendment at the desk related to repealing the 10% enhancement mandate be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time, 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 surface transportation bill reauthorization, that my amendment at the desk related to a six-month surface transportation extension that repeals the 10% 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: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: before my friend leaves the floor, i would 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 number 167, h.r. 2887, the surface and air transportation program extensions, that the only first-degree amendment -- that the only first-degree amendments in order to the bill be the coburn amendment

regarding transportation enhancements, the paul amendment regarding limitation of the highway trust funds and the paul amendment regarding f.a.a. funding levels. that there be up to two hours of debate on the amendments equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote or 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. upon disposition of the amendments, the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill as amended. it is recommended 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 motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. mr. coburn: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. reid: with the time till 4:00 equally divided between the majority and minority. the presiding officer: without objection.

quorum call:

senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, we are looking at a fema emergency supplemental, and there is no doubt that this country has sustained a series of disasters

that will require federal support and funding. we've seen those 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, nothing but foundations left and lives were lost to an extraordinary degree, and people were injured. we've had floods and we've got fires around the country and droughts. so we have some of that every year, and some of this is unusual, and it's incumbent upon us in congress to wrestle with that to try to figure out what should be done, how can we best supplement the insurance and state actions and local people's abilities to respond and make the share -- share a bit of the pain throughout the country.

i was, since i've been interested in the emergency bill, and had some ideas, i was surprised that it was -- appeared on the burma sanctions bill or we were told it was going to be added to it. sort of out of the blue. and it was going to be $7 billion, $6.9 billion. i just hadn't had a chance to know and count and see what those numbers were and whether or not they were justified, but majority leader reid said we want to move to that, that's what we want to do. now some said -- and surely that is not true -- that senator reid was setting a trap for the republicans, that he would offer this bill and throw it out and he would have extra money in it and we would complain and then he would say, the republicans

don't love people who suffer disaster, like i love people who suffer disaster; you don't care; you don't want to help people that are hurting; you are not good people; i'm a good person; i love them more than you do. now, i hope that's not true. maybe -- i don't believe it's true. surely it's not true. but i will just point this out: that president obama's funding request for this supplemental that we've seen was for $500 million in 2011, $4.6 billion for next year, totaling $5.1 billion. that's what the president proposed, but the democratic senate proposal that senator reid has moved forward here has $804 million in 2011, $6.1 billion in 2012, for $6.9

billion. well, that's about almost $2 billion difference. well, you know, they say, that's 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's got to go through right now. well, i just pointed out previously that $2 billion is a lot of money. we have an education budget in my state that's pretty sizable, but the basic general fund budget of alabama is about $2 billion. we're an average-size state. we're about 1/50th of the people in the united states.

$2 billion here, $2 billion there. you're talking about real money. so i'm just raising a question. i suggest that if 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 price dag for a bill, $it -- the price tag for a bill $2 billion, rush it through and attack anybody who has the gumption to attack it, like senator tom coburn. how much can we pay for? can we pay for it all? we probably could and we probably should. or pay for part of it, so it's not borrowed. you see, emergency, in general, is debt. when you declare something an emergency, you're adding to the debt. it means that it's not under the budget. you have a budget limit.

you try -- all the spending is supposed to be under your budgetary limit -- we haven't had a budget here in two years. but when you do a supplemental it doesn't count that way. i've seen the presiding officer, you know, he's pretty sophisticated in these things -- i remember -- i was talking to a senior congressman about an emergency bill years ago, and he said, well -- about a bill; it really wasn't an emergency. and he said, well, jeff, we need to put it on the emergency supplemental. i said, why? he says, it doesn't count against the deficit. and i said, why? he said, i don't know. it just doesn't count. well, what he meant was -- now i know -- that it's not part of the budgetary. it sits on top of it. it adds to the debt in general. so we've got to be careful about that. and we're borrowing now 40 cents

of every dollar we spend -- that's thought a misprint. i am not speaking erroneously. 40 cents of every dollar that's spent this year is borrowed. so i say, responsible senatorial management requires us to examine the legislation. and when we have a bill that's about 40% more than the president asked for, maybe that ought to throw up a red flag around here. maybe we ought to examine it 0 more closely because every single penny that's spent should be spent wisely. and there are two areas: are you spending money in areas that are not needed at all? and we've had some of that on emergency spending. or are you spending money that could be spent better on other problems that arose from the emergency than the money you're

spendingon? and i've been to hurricane damages. i've been to flood damages, i've been to tornado damages, drought damages. it's hard to get the money to the meme really need it -- to the people who really need it and who you can justify. this is not just throwing money at something. so we can do a better job of that and congress really needs to be more involved. so i just think that $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, overwe wil overwhelmingly,t is going to be spent next year, and so we ought to be take time to do this right. and at today's hearing in the budget committee, i emphasized the economic danger our country is facing as a result of the increasing deficit.

we had three economists testifying. two of them were selected by our democratic majority colleagues. and we asked whether they agreed that it would be wise to pursue policies that create jobs rather than more -- without creating debt. in other words, can we -- they all acknowledge that increasing debt is a dangerous thing. and so we discussed whether or not we should seek ways to create jobs and growth in america without adding to the debt, wouldn't that be smart. they all agreed that it would be. 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. and i would say, if you're going to spend $7 billion or $5

billion on an emergency, it helps americans growth, productive, competitiveness if that money is spent the best possible way, every penny of it, to help people really in need and to help increase our national productivity. so those are some of the concerns i have, mr. president. 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, who will be handing the money, setting forth in detail where they expect to spend the money, how it's needed and how they're going to do in a way that's fair and helps the people in the right way. i don't believe that the way this bill is moving is careful enough, and i believe it places at risk the treasury of the united states. i thank the president and would yield the floor. and i note the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, in a few minutes we're going to be voting on a bill that's been put on the floor that will address many of the emergency disaster needs that we have -- that have come our way this last year. i would have to say that in my state of south dakota, it's been a year for the record books. we've had historically cold winters the last couple of winters. we had 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, and my state of south dakota, of course, was impacted dramatically by that as were many of the states in the basin. i think like a lot of parts of the country this year who experience weather-related disasters there are a lot of people who have been hurt by that. in south dakota we have a lot of homeowners in the pier and fort pier area, the yankton area. we've had tremendous wet weather in northeastern south dakota, a lot of people who have been flooded up there. but we've got people in these areas of my state who literally have lost everything, their homes. it wasn't one of these things where you get an event that comes through and it's gone quickly and you can go in and clean up and recover. in this case they were floods that persisted for over long periods of time, in this case

months. i remember touring some of those areas of my state, and in some cases having to go out there in a boat literally to see homes and to walk in to a home in waders, where the water in the living room is up to my waist. the water is there literally for weeks. lots 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 didn't have flood insurance, in most cases because they were told they didn't need it, they weren't in the floodplain. these are homeowners who when the missouri river dams at least thought they were protected by those dams and as a consequence didn't purchase flood insurance with rare exceptions. of course in all of these cases too, these are homeowners who, you know, if they didn't have flood insurance are, in some cases lost everything. i'm not talking about just homeowners who have resources and have means.

i'm talking about people -- i met with a retired schoolteachers who put everything they had in these homes along the missouri river. and now they've literally lost everything. and so i can appreciate how important it is that we do everything we can to respond to this normal weather-related disaster that has come our way. i have great sympathy for those other areas of the country this year who have been impacted as well. i know on the east coast, we had flooding from the hurricane. we had tornadoes this summer that have wiped out parts of entire communities. and so it's been a very, very difficult weather year. and as we approach this issue of how to deal with that, i think it's important that we bear in mind that we do everything possible to address the needs of these homeowners and these people have and try and help them rebuild their lives and put things back together. as we get into this debate, i

certainly recognize the importance of us having a response. and i think 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 think it's important that we do that. i also think it's important, mr. president, giving the budgetary circumstances that we find ourselves in, that we pay for it. and i think there are a couple of amendments that we're 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 united states senate, both republicans and democrats supporting it -- that would do away with some of the duplication that we have in our federal government. the general -- the government accountability office has identified lots of areas of duplication. and in fact, the senator from oklahoma, i think, has already gone through some of those. i've been up here on the floor and addressed some of those as well. 56 or thereabouts programs

spread across ten or some agencies that deal with financial literacy. 82 programs that deal with the issue of teacher training. i think you'd 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, and particularly if we're looking at prioritizing where we spend our tax dollars. and in a case like this, you've got people across our country who have been hurt by these natural disasters who need our assistance, and it strikes me at least that if we're serious about priorities -- and i think all budgets are about priorities -- that we ought to be able to find some savings in these programs and agencies that have been identified by the g.a.o. that would enable us to find funds that are necessary to cover the disaster relief effort. and so i would come down here, mr. president, and speak in support of the coburn amendment. i think the paul amendment as well seeks to use unobligated

balances from usaid, state department, of course we're getting to the end of the year. and if there are funds that haven't been obligated, that haven't been used, that strikes me as well in a way in which we could find some resources that would help us prioritize and put them where they're really needed right now and that is to deal with these impacted communities, these impacted families, these impacted homeowners and helping them rebuild their lives. but fundamentally, when you've got a $1.3 trillion, $1.4 trillion annual deficit and when you're already at $14 trillion in debt, and it's growing at the rate that it is, when you've got a debt to g.d.p. which is literally about 1-1, about 100% and you have to go back to the end of world war ii to find a time in our nation's history when we've seen that kind of debt, these deficits to g.d.p., debt to g.d.p., spending to g.d.p. are at historic highs.

it strikes me, mr. president, that even for important matters like disaster relief, we have got to be as responsible as we possibly can and make sure that we are doing justice to the american taxpayer and not spending money that we don't have. i think that 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 money, some additional money, supplement money into fema, into the corps of engineers, those agencies kind of on the front lines and 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 won't be deficit spending or borrowing from our children and grandchildren, adding more to the debt. and so i think it's a responsible and reasonable way to deal with this. and maybe in the end that's where this ends up. but the debate that we're having today is whether or not we are

going to appropriate $6.9 billion, around $7 billion, for disaster relief. i don't think that we have a full grasp yet of what some of these damages are, the assessments are still coming in. but i think it's important that we be responsible in how we distribute disaster relief, that we know as much as possible about the full-scale, 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 that we can offset that disaster relief. so, the amendments that are before us today, mr. president, i would hope we can support. and as i said before, the coburn amendment is not something new to the senate. the coburn amendment is an amendment that many of us have supported in the past. 64 senators -- that's a very large bipartisan majority here in the united states senate -- have supported this amendment to do away with these duplicative programs and to try and gain

some efficiency and some savings in our federal government. it strikes me at least that when you're dealing with an issue as important as disaster relief is to so many americans, that we certainly ought to be able to prioritize and take some of those duplicative programs, some of those redundant programs that we have in our federal government that have been identified by the government accountability office, ask the o.m.b. to identify $7 billion in savings in order to offset the cost of what we're doing here with regard to disaster relief. so i'm going to certainly support these amendments, mr. president. i hope my colleagues will. and for a lot of reasons. again, because we need to respond when we have a natural disaster like this. but we need to do it in a responsible way. and when you are running these massive annual deficits that we are running today, we need to do everything we possibly can to see that we are paying the nation's bills, that we're not adding it to the credit card,

not handing the bill to our children and grandchildren, not spending money that we don't have, but doing everything we can to live within our means. it's the responsible way to go about this. in my view, it's a reasonable way to go about this. and i think it's the right way to deal with the nation's business. and that is to pay your bills. and the coburn amendment does that. his amendment, i guess, of the two specifically directs the $7 billion. i'm not sure whether or not 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're serious about getting our fiscal house in order. and so i hope that we'll have both republicans and democrats here in the united states senate that would support both of those amendments. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for about five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to actually extend an invitation. the invitation i extend is to

our e.p.a. administrator lisa jackson. the reason for the invitation is very straightforward. there is a lot of confusion about e.p.a.'s position on regulating farm dust. it's the most remarkable thing. 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'm using her words -- it's a myth that e.p.a. is proposing to regulate farm dust. that seems pretty clear. but then her agency says, well, no, we can't 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 e.p.a. 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 e.p.a. can't regulate farm dust unless there's scientific proof that it causes harm. that proof does not exist today. meanwhile, ms. jackson and her agency continue to have problems getting the story straight. you see, she scoffs at the idea of regulating farm dust, and then her agency turns around and say, well, it's really a possibility. well, i understand that

sometimes the direction from the top can get muddled as it works its way down. after all, e.p.a. 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 that 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. you see, i think it's a perfect solution. she says e.p.a. has no intention of regulating farm dust, so

there's absolutely no reason why she wouldn't support this legislation that makes it official. my letter invites her to put her words into action by issuing a straightforward suppor supportie staivment 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 and responds 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 e.p.a. has recently undertaken. madam president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. levin: madam president, i would ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: madam president, i understand that a couple of our colleagues are on their way, and i will yield to them if they should get here as expected, but in the meantime, i'd like to share some thoughts with the senate about the very complex and difficult duty that 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, a huge -- huge automatic budget cuts in vital national programs including in security will take effect to meet the deficit reduction goal. now, those automatic cuts would take an unacceptable toll on vital programs. i believe that i and every member of congress must do our

best to avoid that outcome. that begins with the 12 members of the joint select committee that have been given the assignment of craft ago 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 in defense, health, education and other programs vital to america and to its families. achieving this goal will require sacrifices. everyone's 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 that we could resolve this problem by ignoring why we got here to try to balance the budget by simply cutting more spending, or we could take a realistic look at both spending and revenues. the senator from massachusetts

is ready to speak. i am going to put the balance of my statement in the record. if not, i will use a few additional moments. madam president, we need to take a realistic look at both spending and revenues. just a little historical perspective might be helpful here. federal revenues today are at the lowest share of gross domestic product in generations. just 14.9%. for the past 60 years, that number has averaged about 18%. during that period, we have balanced the budget five times, and each time revenues totaled 19% 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 3/4 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% new revenue and 45% 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're going to reduce the deficit and do so while avoiding unacceptable cuts to the programs that provide for the common defense and general welfare, revenue must be part of the discussion. many of our republican colleagues focus solely on nondefense discretionary programs for deficit reduction. the simple fact is that those programs just are not big enough

to allow real deficit reduction. they make up only about 12% of the federal budget, and 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. and 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 rural piece of the puzzle, and the nonpartisan committee for responsible federal budget which said that putting the deficit on a downward path requires -- quote -- "looking at ways to generate additional revenues. now, madam president, the balance of my remarks which i'm going to put in the record, 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, and if we simply will change our tax code and reform it and close these loopholes, we can raise about a trillion dollars over ten 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 to them such as education. we can do that, and i have sent a letter to the members, including my dear friend from massachusetts of our select committee, laying out the seven areas, 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 ending the use of

offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes and in this letter that went to all of the members of this joint select committee, i have set forth what these loopholes are. and again, we can raise a trillion dollars in ten years by closing them. i would ask unanimous consent, madam president, that the balance of my statement be inserted in the record, that it not be interrupted by my reference to the presence of my friend from massachusetts for his remarks, and that a copy of the letter which i sent to the members of that joint committee be inserted in the record immediately following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may use. let me 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 super

committee to each of us. i think all of us in the senate know that senator levin is one of the most creative and thoughtful senators, and i am confident that the suggestions that he makes are going to be important ones that will be worthy of consideration. and i know also because it's something that i began to focus on back in the 1980's, this issue of off-shore havens is absolutely staggering. so i really look for it. i know the senator has led the permanent committee on investigations, subcommittee on investigations on that. they've done outstanding work and i am confident that a lot of that work can be certainly put on the table and ought to be seriously considered. my hope is we can do something with it. so i thank the senator. madam president, one of the amendments that 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 tbrldz the state department and usaid in order to fund fema disaster relief programs. first of all, a number of colleagues have come to the floor over the last day or so, couple of days, and talked about the -- the principle that has governed our -- our efforts to provide disaster assistance through all of the years of this institution. we don't know how to plan on the amounts, we don't -- we don't 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, by -- ravaged by fires, by some natural disaster. and i think the notion that suddenly we're going to be start offsetting at the time when we're engaged in a very, 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. now, that argument has been made considerably. i just want to talk for a minute about the merits of this particular proposal on its face. let me make this 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 11 and it would completely undermine core national security priorities and humanitarian commitments. now, senator paul argues that foreign aid is, quote, "welfare we give to other nations, many of which are rich nations." well, madam president, i disagree with both parts of that sentence. and i disagree profoundly with the notion that northern aid is some -- 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, 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, and 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 town hall meeting and say we ought to be building whatever the community is that you're in before we send money somewhere else and everybody cheers. instant reaction, easy applause, easy politics. but not smart politics. in terms of the interests of our country. the fact is that all of our foreign aid programs, all of our foreign policy initiatives, all of the state department, everything that we do in usaid, all the things we do from

sending a diplomat to baghdad or to pakistan or afghanistan, every effort we make to help reverse the global h.i.v.-aids epidemic, all the things that our state department engages in make up barely 1% of the annual budget. 1% of the annual budget. so often, when you go out to those town halls that are ready to applaud the idea of just giving the money here, you ask people how much money do you think we give in foreign aid and they say my god, it's 50% of our budget or 20% of our budget or 10% or 5% and it's none of those. it's barely 1%. now, we spend about $700 billion on our military. by contrast, the international affairs budget in its entirety

is less than 1/10 of the pentagon's. former secretary secretary of db gates pointed out, i think only a year or so ago that if you took the entire foreign service roster, you could barely crew one aircraft carrier in the united states navy. now, i understand that we face a budget crisis in our own country. obviously i understand that. we're working hard to address this issue in the new committee that's 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.

and i would remind our senators, our foreign policy and development programs have already been cut to the bone. the final fiscal year 11 spending agreement cuts 6-$5 billion from the international affairs budget. folks, that's a 10% cut. how many agencies took a 10% cut? it happens to also be a 15% cut from the president's request. at the time that we're fighting a war in afghanistan, when we're managing turmoil in the middle east, when we're 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 the time when it's trying to do it, are we going to say pull the rug out from under them and say go ahead, muslim

brotherhood, it's -- its pickings are all for you. it just doesn't make sense. at the time we're coping with unprecedented famine in the horn of africa, millions of people starving to death, a global tragedy, the 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 us i aid's ability to serve as a critical partner to the military in the post-conflict 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, and i think raise serious questions about the viability of

what we're trying to accomplish. we're at a critical juncture in those efforts to stabilize afghanistan and pakistan and cutting our aid to those countries will impact our military operation, it will slow, for all those senators who want to get out of afghanistan faster, you pull the aid out from underneath it, you may be getting out in a way you don't want to, or you will make it longer before you get out in the way that you do want to. so i would suggest respectfully, you know, senator paul has said that he would rather -- much rather send professors around the world than soldiers. i don't know an american who wouldn't rather do that. we all hope that that can happen as soon as possible. but you can't just ordain it by saying here it is, here's what we're doing and change the situations on the ground. the wish does not become the father to the fact in those

situations. and as we've seen in the recent days with the attack on our embassy in kabul, there's 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 those products. but if all of a sudden you're pulling back your ability to be able to marshal opportunities in those markets, if you reduce the ability of the united states businesses to be able to get those opportunities, we diminish our own efforts to strengthen our economy.

we don't just face a deficit crisis, we also face a jobs deficit. and in the face of global competition o'our growth and our exports are directly tied to our ability to create new american markets. money that we spend he helping to stabilize emerging economies has an amazing impact on our own economy. and that has been proven for, you know, all the years certainly since the end of world war ii. it would also, the and amendment would also lead to a $1 billion cut in our battle against global aids. the president's program, which president george bush, republican, worked with us, the foreign relations committee, a program that senator helms, senator frist and i originally developed, a program which currently supports over 3.5 million people on

life-saving h.i.v.-aids treatments. a reduction of this size to 2011 funds would mean around one million people would be thrown off of those treatments, dramatically reducing the numbers of lives saved through this program. madam president, we are a country that has prided ourselves in our willingness to live our values. the judeo-christian ethic is one of charity and one of concernor the poor and the downtrodden, the sick and so forth. and 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, you know, there are some folks in america who tithe 10% 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 a

million people at risk from a program which we're currently saving lives on? i don't understand that kind of value system. it would derail our efforts to forestall famine in the horn of africa, and that would trigger long-lasting suffering and destable stabilizing in the neighboring countries as kenya and yes, ma'amen and somalia. in somalia alone approximately 3.2 million people are in need of life saving assistance. half a million children are acutely malnourished and 29,000 children under the age of 5 have tragically died. this planet knows how to feed people. and rich countries have an obligation to try to do that. and our obligation is de minimus. de minimus. we shouldn't come in here

installing a new principle all of a sudden for the first time ever 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. so i hope my colleagues will recognize this amendment is not the right way to approach this. it would have a neglect negligie impact on our budget deficit but its real impact on our security would be enormous. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. m ms. landrieu: i know the vote has been scheduled to call, but i ask there be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the amendment votes and four minutes equally divided prior to final passage. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. who yields time? who yields time? ms. landrieu: madam president, how much time before the vote?

the presiding officer: two minutes. ms. landrieu: okay. then i'd like to speak then, if i could. i thought the time was out. in just a few minutes, besides the two amendments that have been debated extensively this afternoon and i want to thank the senator from massachusetts for his strong objection to one of the amendments and the eloquent way in which he expressed the feelings of so many of us that will be voting with senator kerry against the rand amendment -- the paul amendment. let me just put this up, as i've been using this all week. the underlying bill that we'll be voting on in just a few minutes will give the senate the opportunity to vote for disaster relief now. it's the only vehicle available to us in the senate to vote for relatively full disaster relief

for the year 2012 now. so i want people to realize, as they're considering how they're going to vote, because we received 61 votes on the same -- i i understand we're a out of time. i'll speak later again. but again it gives us an opportunity to vote for disaster relief now. and i i understand we're out of time. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: who yields time? opposition? ms. landrieu: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent to yield back the time and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, all time is yielded back. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

quorum call: you you quorum call:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change their vote? 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 not agreed to. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate on the paul amendment number 613. who yields time?

mr. leahy: could we have order? the presiding officer: could we please have order. the senator from vermont is going to speak. could we please have order. could we please have order. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, we are not in order. this is going to be a very short debate. i'd like to be heard. the presiding officer: could we please have order. we are not going to have the debate until there is order in the chamber. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i would also ask unanimous consent there be an additional minute for senator graham, lindsey graham, to speak on this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: madam president, my state was devastated by hurricane irene. i'm 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's a terrible idea to cut critical national security programs to offset funding for emergency disasters. it would set a precedent that would make it infinitely harder to help our states cope with these crises, whether it's katrina or whether it's earthquakes or no matter what it is. disasters -- the presiding officer: thank you. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: disasters strike unexpectedly. the funding in the recovery bill is not built in the budget. they strike republican and democratic states alike. and to say in this, well, why don't we cut out our state department, our embassies, so we cut out the aid that the united states gives to haiti. you know, we live in a global economy. this amendment makes no sense. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. could we please have order.

this is a very important matter. could we please have order. the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you, madam president. this is very important. we're 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. you don't want to always -- you want to help people help themselves. the money in this account will allow people to stand up against terrorism and do something americans have been doing a long time, and that's 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 those in this body who want to make sure israel gets the right message at the 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: i that i we ought to make one clarification of fact. israel gets all their foreign aid at 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's about 10% of foreign aid. foreign aid or welfare is opposed by 77% of americans. and even if you thought it was a good idea to give welfare to foreign countries, you don't have it, so you're borrowing this money from china or you're printing it up and you're adding to the debt. our country faces a debt crisis. we are borrowing $40,000 a second, and i think it's unwise when bridges are falling down and being closed in louisville, kentucky, to send money to other countries, particularly money where -- we're borrowing and

printing. i urge the support to eliminate the 10% of foreign aid. i think it's a very reasonable proposal. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the paul amendment. number 613. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to vote or to change their vote? could we please have order. 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 not agreed to. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: could we have order, please. the presiding officer: could we please have order for the majority leader. mr. reid: before i recite the unanimous consent agreement i hope will be approved what we intend to do is vote on final

passage of the bill before us, 10 minutes of debate, there will be two votes on two amendments and then final passage so four more votes. and we should be finished. and i want 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's how -- that's how we have accomplished a lot. we got a decent bill from the house, and we've been to be able move forward on this legislation. the republican leader and i had a number -- quite a long conversation here in the well. we've got a lot of work to do here that we want to do together. and so the cooperation we've had this week by both democrats and republicans has been are extremely important. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that time be determined by me after consultation with the republican leader, to proceed to calendar 167, that the only first-degree

amendments in the bill be the following: the texts of which are at the desk: paul regarding the highway trust fund, up to 10 minutes for debate on the amendments and equally divided and controlled by between senator paul and the majority leader or their designees. prior to votes on the amendments in the order lith list thread be no amendments in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes, be subject to a 60-vote threshold, the senate vote on passage of the bill as amended if amended that there be no other amendments, points of order or motions to the bill ooj the budget points of order and applicable motions are waived and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate on the reid amendment number 602. who yields time? could we please have order. the senator from louisiana is

recognized. could we please have order before she speaks. the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: madam president, i'd like to speak of course for final passage and i'd like to speak last. is there anyone that wants to speak in opposition? the presiding officer: is there someone to speak in opposition? the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: if not, i'll take the time to close. i want to say thank you to several members, many members on my side that 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 want to thank members on the other side of the aisle, particularly senators blunt, senators vitter, senator rubio, senator snowe, that have lent their voice and their vote to help us get to this

point. and i particularly want to thank senator blunt for spending 15 minutes on the floor today saying how crucial this is to his state of missouri, but to the whole country. and i want to thank the members on my side, senators leahy and senator schumer and kay hagan and others that have helped so much this week, senator shaheen, that has been at all the press conferences. senator sanders. now, let me say that this is the only vehicle, the only vehicle that we have before us to do long-term full funding for the disaster relief. this bill will provide help to nebraska, to minot, north dakota, to new york, to the east coast, to tuscaloosa, alabama, joplin, missouri. if we don't vote for this, the

dert 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. do we have four minutes? the presiding officer: you have two minutes, senator. ms. landrieu: i'd like to take another 30 seconds. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. landrieu: since there is no option that's going to speak, i'd like to take those two minutes as well. this is a very important vote. i know some people think we should have gone through the regular process. the last time we went through a regular process with individual votes coming to the floor by october 1 was 1994. it's 2011. as the appropriator, the chair of this committee, i knew that that was not a way to go to bring quick