it's designed for, people who need temporary help. because of that we want every single dollar to go where it ought tooing and we're going to be putting forward policies that i'm sure the senate will support that will guarantee that there's not one dollar that goes to somebody that doesn't deserve it, somebody who is cheating, fraud, or abuse. we're going to make sure that happens but this debate needs to be done in the context as it always has been, of our farm bill policy on food and nutrition. so i would ask my colleagues to oppose this and to work with us as we put forward policies that will be coming very soon. thank you and i yield back to the senator from colorado and thank him for his graciousness. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i appreciate the senator from maryland's patience with us, this is an important set of amendments being offered today. i rise in opposition to

amendment 753 offered by the senator from new hampshire, ms. aqlot. i enjoy working with ms. ayotte and appreciate her contributions to the committee but i strongly disfree with her amendment. senator ayotte's amendment would prohibit the united states from trying enemy cat combatants in article 3 civilian courts. these refer to article 3 of the united states constitution. article 3 courts are the envy of the world and while there is a role for military tribunals they are certainly not the only solution and frankly by prohibiting the use of article 3 courts we may actually hinder our efforts to bring terrorists to justice. the ayotte amendment would put the military smack in the middle of our domestic law enforcement efforts in our fight against extremists, terrorists. my friend from new hampshire argues that this is a war that should be prosecuted by our military, but the reality is in many cases the best course of

action is for our domestic law enforcement, the f.b.i. and others, to take the lead. this amendment would prevent the department of justice from questioning or prosecuting terrorists caught on u.s. soil engaged in a criminal act of terrorism, and it would prevent federal prosecutors from bringing these terrorists to justice in so-called article 3 courts. federal prosecutors, mr. president, have tried, convicted and imprisoned hundreds of terrorists in article 3 courts. the department of defense has obtained only six convictions, six convictions in military tribunals. d.o.d.'s job is to track down, kill or capture those who would harm america or our citizens. they do an incredible job of that. and we all stand in awe of the work that they do to keep us safe. but it's not the department of defense's job to try each and every one of those individuals. it's a mission they don't want, and they would have to radically change their entire system to

accommodate prisoners that are already handled by civilian court. article 3 courts have kept americans safe for over 200 years. i have to say i don't believe it's prudent to build a new judicial system from scratch in order to meet objectives that are already being met. for example, umar farouk abdulmutallab, also known as the underwear bomber was dreas arrested in detroit after trying to set off an explosive on an airplane. he was read his rights, prosecuted and he recently pled guilty. under this amendment the f.b.i. would have had to call in the military to obtain abdul due taliban -- abdulmutallab without any resolution in his case. under this amendment abdulmutallab would have been given imfluent federal criminal prosecution. if this amendment passes, our

allies may refuse to ex extradie terrorist suspects to the united states. and if it's invalidated by the supreme court which has happened in other settings in the supreme court, there would be no way to prosecute these high-value foreign terrorism suspects because of this amendment. what would that mean, mr. president? no conviction of the blind sheik who planned the first world trade center attack, or miew sawy, the 9/11, all of whom were convicted in article 3 courts. the ayotte amendment would provide 100% immunity from federal prosecution to suspected terrorists and eviscerate a very effective tool in our counterterrorism portfolio. this doesn't strike me as being as stuff as we could be on terrorists. mr. president, the fact is that

the prosecutors at the department of justice have numerous federal criminal laws at their disposal with which to charge suspected terrorists. the federal courts have more than 200 years of precedent to guide them while tribunals have almost none. and as i've said our federal prosecutors have had great success so far. in memory, i urge my deletion vote against our a.m. i believe it will do more harm than good while subverting the final justice system in the world in the process. let me be clear that i wholeheartedly support the underlying bill that's been so ably you a thos authored by senr mikulski and others. but i have to oppose this reavmenamendment. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: mr. president, i rise in response to my esteemed

colleague from colorado's comments about my amendment, 753. and i would say this first: my amendment does not provide immunity to terrorists. what my amendment does is treats terrorists as they should be. we're at war, and under the laws of war traditionally, we have tried people in military commissions, military tribunal, and those individuals that my colleague from colorado cited, including the umar farouk abdulmutallab could be held accountable in a military commission because our priority has to be when we are at war to gather intelligence, to protect our country, and not where we should prosecute in our article 3 courts, which i have great confidence in -- i served as attorney general of our state and believe very much in our article 3 court system. but our article 3 court system

is not where terrorists should be tried whom we are at war with. and in light of the recent comments here on the floor, i feel compelled to point out some of the facts that i think are important for the american people to know about some of the cases that have been cited in support of saying that terrorists should be tried in article 3 courts. on october 12, umar farouk abdulmutallab pleaded guilty in the u.s. district court in detroit. and that case has been cited by not only the senator from colorado but by the senator from maryland and the senator from illinois as a shining example that -- and our attorney general has cited it as well -- as the ultimate in final vindication of the use of our civilian courts for the trial of enemy combatants. they were so confidence that the so-called underwear bomber, as

he's been nairnlingsd a guilty plea would settle the case once and for all that on on the 13, the senator from illinois declared the controversy over. and we've heard those same arguments today. i think we need to review who exactly abdulmutallab s he is no common criminal. we're not talking about people who have robbed liquor stores or who are americans who have committed criminal acts in this country. he's the nigerian man who tried to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board a flight to detroit on september 25, 2009. he was a member of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, claimed to have organized an attack with the underwear bomber. they organized it with him, claiming that al qaeda and the in the ayain peninsula -- in the

arabian peninsula supplied him with the bomb. he was charged with eight counts, including the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted murder of 290 americans much the underwear bomber pleaded guilty at trial tell ago surprised courtroom on the second day of his trial that the failed attack was in retaliation for the killing of muslims worldwide. this has been cited as the final vindication for civilian trials, and i think it's important to mention three points about this case. first of all, the presumption seems to be that the civilian court system should have the primary responsibility for questioning, trying, and ultimately detaining foreign enemy combatants with whom the united states is in a declared war with. that's not been the rule in prior conflicts. we are treating this conflict differently than we have treated other conflicts where our enemies have been tried in military commissions.

the first point. second, in my view, the administration's eagerness to appease the aclu by trying enemy combatants in civilian courts misses the whole point about detention and in a time of war. when we are at war, we detain enemy combatants to glean valuable intelligence that will help prevent future atax deduction -- attacks, save american lives. al qaeda was war with the united states long before the united states strongly reacted to this threat. we remain at war with al qaeda and when we put enemy combatants in our civilian court system, we are focusing on prosecution and we potentially miss important opportunities to gather information to prevent future attacks. -- by doing so. in abdulmutallab's cairks the administration read him his miranda rights after 50 minutes of questioning. in my view, this jeopardized

valuable intelligence and i know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, well, eventually he spoke and he gave us lots of information. but why would we put information in jeopardy? why would we read terrorists miranda rights, because i, as a prosecutor, have never heard a law enforcement official tell me that miranda rights are a helpful information-gathering tool. but that seems to be the position that i'm hearing today. this jeopardized intelligence was clearly unnecessary and in this case the fact that we didn't have to rely on a confession -- this was a case where we caught the underwear bomber red-handed, so even if we were to have treated him in a military commission and had not given him miranda rights, had gathered intelligence for as long as we could have, we still would have had him red-handed because every -- the passengers on that flight saw him.

he was caught with the explosives in hand. this was never a case about a guilty plea, whether we got some information about him. the essential question is whether we got the most information possible from a terrorist who was trying to attack americans and our allies. -- to prevent future attacks. not whether we gave him mir dhahran rights. -- not whether we gave him miranda rights. with a case about abdulmutallab, it doesn't prove that the civilian court system is superior to military commissions. his conviction was never realistically in doubt. and defenders of bringing our enemy combatants to the united states civilian trial often cite a number of cases and conviction related to military cases. again, i want to reiterate i am a strong believer in our civilian court system, but i want to point out some of the down sides to using our civilian

court system. the costs of security. the cause of civic disruption in the area. the risk of compromising classified information, and the risk of eventual release of these combatants, not to some other country but into american society, regardless of whether they're convicted in a civilian court. and these concerns aren't academic. i've heard some of my colleagues cite the case of zacarias moussaoui who was a member of al qaeda who was involved in the 9/11 attacks and his involvement spanned nearly a decade and his case was finally resolved only last year. these proceedings cost millions of dollars and cause substantial civic disruption. for example, the federal courthouse in alexandria, virginia, was described as an armed camp with the courthouse complex and surrounding neighborhood becoming a virtual encampment with heavily armed guarded, rooftop snipers, bomb-snisk dogs, blocked streets

and identification checks f we had tried him at gong guantanamo bay in the military commission there, these security concerns would have been accounted for and we wouldn't have had to disrupt virginia to do that. it's not a problem we would confront in our military commission system. in addition, in the civilian trial of 9/11 terrorist zacarias moussaoui, sensitive material was inadvertently leaked because our civilian court system, as wonderful as they are, are not set up to deal with cases during a time of war. and so this issue of sensitive material that would naturally be part of the military system is something that they've had to confront in these cases. moussaoui also mocked 9/11 victims and used the civilian trial as a platform to spew terrorist propaganda. all of these negative side effects of trying a terrorist in a civilian court would have been

eliminated or significantly miss debate fundamental he had been detained in military custody and if tried before a military commission. in the case of owe march abdul rahman, commonly known as the blind sheikh, the civilian trial provided intelligence to osama bin laden. so when i hear that case cited as success, the first thing that comes to my mind, if intelligence was provided to osama bin laden, how is that a success when our number-one focus should be on protecting the american people? and that has to be the distinction between trying enemy combatants in a time of war and the very important purpose of our civilian court system. in the case of the blind sheikh, according to michael mukasey, the former attorney general, in the course o of prosecuting owe march abdul rahman, the government was execialtiond as it is in all cases, to charge a

conspiracy charge and to turn over a list of unindicted coconspirators to the defendants. within day, a copy of that list of unindicted coconspirators reached bin laden in khartoum. the negs a list, because you had to do it according to our civilian court system, where notice requirements are very important, where generally our court systems are open, would be provided to osama bin laden, in my view, is unacceptable, a risk we could have avoided if we treated him as he should have been treated, which is as an enemy combatant and tried in a military commission. civilian trials of enemy combatants have provided a treasure troaive of in fact to terrorists and i think those risks have been very discounted by my esteemed colleagues who have come to the floor to oppose my amendment. according to open-source reporting, the cost of

disclosing information unwisely became compleer after the new york trials of bin laden associates for the 1998 bombings of u.s. embassies in africa. some of the evidence indicated that the national security agency, the u.s. foreign eavesdropping organization, had intercepted cell phone conversations. shortly thereafter, bin laden's organization stopped using cell phones to discuss operational details. it is important to note that the record of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts is not as good as it's been made out to be. the administration elevates the so-called underwear bomber case as definitive, but i haven't heard a lot on this floor about ahmed ghailani. he was a tan sedanian killed with a total of 284 counts, including 200-plus counts of murder and one count of conspiracy in the 1998 bombings of the u.s. embassies in tan deignia and ken yavment the

bombings killed 221 people. he also spent time as osama bin laden's body guard, tried in a district court for the southern district of new york. the department of justice directed the u.s. attorney not to seek the death penalty. at trial, the presiding justice excluded from evidence the testimony of the key witness, a tanzanian, who may have issued statements implicating him in the -- implicating him in the bombings. and on november 17 of 2k0 10, a jury after thieved was excluded, a jury found ghailani only guilty of one count of a conspiracy and acquitted him of all 284 other charges, including the murder charges. he murdered 284 people, 12 americans, and he was acquitted of murder charges. i think that's a case that shows that our civilian court system is not always the best way to

deal with enemy combatants. it's very contrary to what i've heard on the cases cited from my opponents of this amendment of proponents of civilian trials such as attorney general holder want to criminalize the war, but they fail to cite these cases where the civilian court system leaked classified information to terrorists or the results, because of excluded evidence, were that terrorists were not held accountable in the way that they should. military detention for enemy combatants has always been the rule, not the exception. why are we treating this war any differently? civilian courts rightly focus on prosecution and miss -- but they miss the most important goal that we have to have, and that is gathering intelligence and protecting the american people. against future attacks. civilian trials for enemy combatants incur tremendous costs, cost disruption.

that is why the administration itself has reversed its position on trying khalid sheikh mohammed in new york city. th they wanted to try the mastermind in the middle of new york city but the american people were so outraged by trying someone who is the mast sper mind of 9/11 in the middle of new york city and the millions of dollars it would have cost to protect the citizens of new york from this horrible individual, giving him a forum in the middle of new york city. again, the costs associated with protecting them in civilian trials is alone enough as they should in military commissions. we raise the risk of compromising classified information which i've given examples of. and we risk the release of these combatants into american society. for these reasons, consistent with the long-standing precedent, we should not be bringing enemy combatants to the united states for civilian trials. if the obama administration is willing to kill enemy combatants

without due process, why is it so against placing these same enemy combatants in military custody and treating them under the law of war and detaepbg them that way -- detaining them that way and trying them in military commissions? i think the answer is clear. unfortunately, i am concerned that it's a political decision rather than putting forth foremost gathering intelligence to protect the american people and treating these enemy combatants as who they are: enemies of our country. i would urge my colleagues to support my amendment. in my view, beyond the policy reasons for not trying enemy combatants in civilian courts, we should ask ourselves why should we bring foreign terrorists to the united states and give them the legal protection reserved for u.s. citizens and secured by those who have fought and died for those rights. why do these people deserve access to our american court

system? they are enemies. and the civilian court system there are rights guaranteed such as miranda rights and speedy presentment that should not be extended. we need to prioritize protecting our country. i think the american people will agree with me when i say that no terrorist should ever hear the words "you have the right to remain silent." thank you, mr. president. i appreciate it. i would urge my colleagues to support my amendment, amendment 753. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i would concept present amendment be set aside and amendment 792 be brought back up. i have a modification that i sent to the desk. i thank the senator from california for giving me this privilege. the presiding officer: without objection. the amendment is modified.

mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i rise as chairman of the intelligence committee to speak against amendment 753 to the appropriations bill. in sum, this amendment will require members of al qaeda to be prosecuted only by military commissions. it will cripple executive authority and flexibility. of all things, in this area, where we should be tkpwraepd and the president -- we should be agreed and the president should have maximum flexibility, it is with the disposition of people who commit acts of terror in this country. i feel it very strongly. the military commission has been in effect since 2005. its convictions are six. terrorists have been tried all during the bush administration

in article 3 courts and more than 400 of them have been convicted and are serving time in federal prisons. one case is brought up where somebody disagrees with a verdict. well, ladies and gentlemen, you know, you can disagree with the federal verdict but you can't disagree with the record of conviction. and i'll go into this in a little more detail in a few minutes. just to say again, i have never seen a time when congress has tried so hard to constrain the power of the president and as well our professionals in law enforcement in their efforts to defeat terrorism. as has been the policy of republican and democratic presidents, the decision about how to prosecute a suspected terrorist should be based on the facts and circumstances of each

case and our national security interest. not politics. some of the most well-known terrorists of the past decade: shoe bomber richard reid, blind sheikh omar abdul rahman serving life sentences. zacarias moussaoui serving life sentence after being tried in article 3 criminal courts. prosecuting terrorists in military commissions makes sense in some cases. but requiring for all al qaeda terrorists in each and every case is not in the national security interest of the united states of america. in fact, it would severely limit our ability to handle some of the biggest threats. to understand why this proposed amendment would be such bad policy, consider two cases where al qaeda tried to use operatives to attack our homeland, but we captured and arrested the

terrorists instead. first, as has been mentioned, mazi bulla zazi, a legal permanent resident of the united states arrested in 2009 as part of an al qaeda conspiracy to carry out suicide bombings on the new york subway system. then christmas day 2009, umar farouk abdulmutallab attempted to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board northwest airlines flight 253. aqap claimed responsibility for the attack and said abdulmutallab had been trained and tasked to carry out the plot. in both cases the f.b.i. arrested each al qaeda operative in the midst of an unfolding terrorist plot and was able to obtain useful intelligence through interrogation. just most recently the d.e.a.

and the f.b.i., through shared human and signals intelligence were able to interrupt the plot to kill the saudi ambassador right here in washington, d.c. and that man will be tried in federal court. and that man was interrogated by the f.b.i. and that man spilled his guts, as they say, in the vernacular, to the f.b.i. to go back to abdulmutallab, he phr*ed guilty last week to all counts charging him for the role of the christmas day 2009 bombing of northwest airlines flight 253. he cooperated. he provided intelligence. and he will probably spend the rest of his life behind bars when he is sentenced in january. by comparison, two out of the

six individuals convicted in military commissions over a six-year period are already out of prison living freely in their home countries of yemen and australia. consider these relatively light sentences handed down by military commissions since 9/11: bin laden's driver hamdan acquitted of conspiracy, convicted of material support, received a five-month sentence, sent back home to yemen. australian david hicks, first person convicted by a military commission when he entered into a plea agreement on materiel support of terrorism charges, march 2007. given a nine-month sentence which he mostly served back home in australia. omar cotter pled guilty in a military commission in exchange for an eight-year sentence.

but he will likely be transferred to a canadian prison after a year. four, i ibrahim ahmed, a jury delivered a 14-year sentence but the final sentence handed down in february of this year was two years pursuant to his plea agreement. fifth, nuro muhammad pleaded guilty to conspiracy and materiel support to terrorism in february 2011. a jury delivered a 14-year sentence, but the final sentence will be less than three years pursuant to his plea agreement. these are military commission trials. ali hamza received a life sentence after he boycotted the entire military commission process and was convicted of

soliciting murder and materiel support for terrorism without mounting a defense. in the zazi case, what the senator from new hampshire was suggesting would actually require the government to split up codefendants, even where they would otherwise be prosecuted as part of the same conspiracy. for example, zazi's alleged coconspirators, ziran and madugen would be prosecuted on charges in criminal court but zaz himself would have been transferred to a military commission. splitting up coconspirators into two different detention and prosecution systems might prevent prosecutors from achieving the guilty pleas and likely long prison sentences that will be secured in the zazi

security case. prosecutors have already obtained convictions against six individuals in this case, including zazi and abadzay who face life in federal prison without parole. most importantly, we have heard from intelligence officials and others that a mandatory military commission policy will reduce our allies' willingness to extradite terror suspects to the united states for interrogation or prosecution or even provide evidence about suspected terrorists if they'll be shipped off to military commissions in all cases. now you might say why would our allies do that? i'll tell you why. because our allies, who know about the past decade and what happened to people as a product of military commissions and what

didn't happen, are very reluctant to give evidence to a process that does not involve the rule of law as a federal court system lays that out. on page 380 of the 9/11 commission report is the recommendation -- and i quote -- "the united states should engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach for the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists." end quote. if congress rejects the views of our allies and mandates military commission prosecutions for some terrorists, it will also be a rejection of the recommendation from the 9/11 commission. moreover, we will be undermining international law enforcement cooperation and dangerous terrorists could also be set free as a result.

every single suspected terrorist captured on american soil before and after september 11 has been taken into custody by law enforcement, not the united states military. this should never change. somebody commits an act on our soil, it should be an article 3. this doesn't mean that we're negating terrorism in any way, but it does mean that they should have the best chance for a serious trial and a very serious sentence. as john brennan, the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, stated in a march speech -- and i quote -- "terrorists arrested inside the united states will, as always, be processed exclusively through our criminal justice system. and they should be. the alternative would be

inconsistent with our values and our adherence to the rule of law. our military does not patrol our streets or enforce our laws in this country, nor should it." end quote. i couldn't agree more. in summary, amendment 753 authored by the senator from new hampshire will severely and seriously undermine our ability to incapacitate dangerous individuals and protect the american people. i believe this is something we cannot afford, and i really hope that this body will do everything it can to present -- excuse me -- to protect executive authority, to give that executive flexibility. i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a summary list from march of

2010 of more than 400 terrorist convictions in article 3 courts. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: i thank the chair, and i yield the floor. oh, let me say one other thing if i may on another topic. well, i will to that later. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. in tax reform kansas. mr. roberts: -- the speaker pro tempore: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i rise to raise significant concerns with the pending amendment offered by my good friend and colleague, senator david vitter. and his amendment allows for the importation for prescription drugs from canada. and i'm going to reiterate some of the same concerns that are voiced every time, every time we discuss drug importation.

let me also say that i think we all want more inexpensive drugs for our constituents, we all want broader access to drugs and therapies. that's a given. i know that that is precisely the intent of my colleague, but, however, we also want to ensure our constituents are safe when they are taking these drugs, no matter what the expense. not only that, but americans expect to be kept safe. so i must raise concerns, mr. president, that nothing in the vitter amendment ensures the safety of drugs that would be imported from canada. that's the lone country that's involved in regards to his pending amendment. now, some say that only the f.d.a.-approved drugs will be imported, and that only safe drugs will be imported, but the

reality, mr. president, is that the last four secretaries of health and human services from shal leyla to thompson and leavitt and now sebelius have been unable to guarantee these imported drugs are safe, not from canada, not from any other country. now, while my friend from louisiana claims he has narrowed the scope of his amendment, at the modified vitter amendment remains so broad in scope that it could potentially tie the hands of the f.d.a. in limiting counterfeit drugs reaching the united states, something we desperately do not want. the f.d.a. has found on several occasions drugs being promoted and sold as canadian actually come from many other countries with very little oversight on safety and efficacy.

and finally, a "new york times" investigation found that counterfeit drugs were sold through a canadian internet pharmacy and it's easy to conclude because these drugs were the source -- sourced from many other countries, it would be impossible to guarantee their safety. so the bottom line is, the f.d.a. cannot, not a little, not a lot, absolutely cannot assure that any drug coming from outside the united states is safe or effective. so, mr. president, i must oppose the vitter amendment today or whenever it is brought up, and would encourage my colleagues to join me until we can ensure, until we can ensure that the drugs our constituents are taking are safe and effective and turn it around and say effective and most importantly, safe. i yield back. a senator: mr. president.

ms. mikulski: mr. president, it's an interesting bill on the floor, it's three bills, ities agriculture appropriations, commerce, justice and science, and the transportation-housing bill. our colleague, senator herb kohl of wisconsin, spent a good part of yesterday managing the bill. he chairs the agricultural subcommittee, and i'm doing it today. senator kohl was tied up on other matters, and he asked me to ensure that his statements in opposition to the crapo amendment number 814 and the moran 815 were presented to the senate. and i said that i would. i ask unanimous consent that senator kohl's remarks be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: and he was adamant in his opposition to the moran

amendment providing $8 million for the watershed rehab program. while he's not opposed to the watershed rehab program, he wanted to make it clear we had to make very difficult decisions. he does not support senator moran's amendment, as it would offset funding for the departmental administration providing numerous essential services to usda. these cuts would force usda to impose a reduction in force, would have a detrimental effect on the department and its operation. usda has already initiated buyouts to several thousand employees across many agricultural agencies. the level for the department administration is already over $13 million and $7 million below the request. secretary vilsack has reached out to the agricultural subcommittee and is concerned on

overall staff reductions at the department. senator kohl echoes secretary vilsack's concern. senator kohl opposes this amendment and on his behalf i urge other senators to oppose it as well. he also opposed the crapo amendment because in a nutshell, says that dictating that funds cannot be used unless the rule making agenda and implementation schedule meets with congressional approval or constraining the regulatory process of defining terms just goes too far and is a veiled attempt to roll back critical dodd-frank reforms particularly in the derivative area. and again on behalf of senator kohl, he urges all senators to reject crapo amendment number 814. i thank the chair and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much.

mr. president, i rise to speak in opposition to the coburn amendment number 791 and i'm pleased to be joined on the floor by my good friend and colleague and ranking member, senator robert. and let me start by saying that in the context now of addressing a very large deficit that we know that needs to be addressed and in the context of the work being done by colleagues and what's been called the super committee, i'm very proud of the fact that senator roberts and i and our colleagues, the chair and ranking member of the house agriculture committees have come together working very, very hard. different regions of the country, different issues that we bring to the table, and we've agreed on on an overall reduction number that we've recommended as agriculture's

portion of deficit reduction. we've already done deficit reduction, i have to say, we've already seen cuts in crop insurance, already seen cuts in the current-year budget that were substantial but we know we need to do our part and we are doing that, we are recommending $23 billion in deficit reduction, and part of that, though, the critical part of that is that we have asked the committee to allow us as the leadership in the house and senate to propose the policy that goes with the cuts. and we are working with all of those that are affected, both from production agricultural, conservation groups, nutrition community, everyone involved, rural development, everyone that's involved and impacted by the 16 million jobs in agriculture, i might add, 16 million jobs, one out of four jobs in michigan. this is incredibly important to

our economy. and we are taking very seriously the need for us to come together and create changes, reforms in agricultural policy that streamline both for farmers, streamline the system and the bureaucracy, do a better job of dollars, accountability, and reform what we are doing as it relates to the agricultural payment structure. so nits the context of that that i -- so it's in the context of that that i rise to oppose senator coburn's amendment. i appreciate his well-intended amendment but i would say two things: first of all, that he's proposing caps, i understand, of a million dollars on direct payments. we're in the process of changing that and recommending positive reforms in that whole system, so we would ask that the senate, our colleagues, support us in our

recommendations that we are putting together that we've been asked to put together by november 1, which is extremely fast tracked but we are working dill gently, our staff's working diligently, not getting a lot of sleep right now to get this all done, to put forward this new policy. so it's the wrong time and place to be suggesting this change, first of all, on an appropriations bill and secondly in the context of this bipartisan, bicameral good-faith effort to put forward changes in our system, which we are doing, which we are committed to doing, which will, frankly, usurp what this amendment is all about. let me also say that it's important to talk about the fact that we have made changes in the last two farm bills. in 2002 there was a cap put on payments of $2.5 million. we then lowered that in 2008

farm bill to 500,000 thows dollars for nonfarm income and $750,000 for farm income. we made a number of changes and a number of reforms in the last farm bill that moved us in the right direction, listening to the criticisms and concerns of the public and of colleagues, there were i think some very important steps that were made and positive changes in the last farm bill. but understanding the world in which we are in now and the dynamics around deficit reduction and the economy and all of the other issues we're involved in, we're taking another major step, and it is a step being done, i think, in a way that says to colleagues and it says to the public we can work together. these are challenging issues, policies, economic issues. and we've come together and worked very hard in a bipartisan basis with the house and the

senate, and i think this speaks well to the fact that if we sit down together and listen to each other and are willing to compromise, that you can come together on something that's good for the country. so we're in the process of doing that right now. and i would ask our colleagues to allow us and support us in that effort. we've put forward a proposal for $23 billion in deficit reduction which is frankly, more than would be required under sequestration for agriculture. we have gone above and beyond what bowles-simpson proposal said but we know agriculture will want to do its part. we are asking colleagues to allow us to put together that follows get us there. we have addressed the concerns that have been raised. we hear you. we understand. we will be proposing things that are substantial changes that will in fact both create new tools for agriculture for our

farmers, our ranchers, but also address concerns that have been raised, and i would ask colleagues that rather than supporting this amendment, to support what is a good-faith effort that is going on right now in the house and senate agriculture committees, and allow us the time in the next week to put together the proposals to be able to make a change. with that, i would yield to my friend -- and i do mean "friend"; we've become good friends as well as colleagues and partners on the agriculture committee, and with -- and i have to say, i loved being in kansas and having the opportunity to be with senator roberts and see the high esteem in which he is held there. and, at the same time, i saw tremendous devastation as a result of what has happened with the droughts, and i understand that when there's bad weather, when there's bad conditions, we need to have support for

american agriculture. food security, national security dependents on it, and i certainly saw in kansas what happens when the weather is bad, and it has reinforced for me, as well as what happens in michigan certainly, the importance of having a strong set of tools to manage risk and a safety net that's there when farmers need it. so i would yield to my friend, the distinguished ranking member. robert robert i thank very much the distinguished chairwoman for yielding. we're talking about the amendment number 791, the pending amendment, to be offered by my friend and colleague from oklahoma, senator coburn. mr. roberts: and i must oppose the coburn amendment to severely diminish the farm safety net for america's farmers and ranchers, mr. president. i know that's not the intent of his amendment, as he sees it, but unfortunately that would be the practical effect, as the

chairwoman has indicated. the setting of adjusted gross income caps or what we call a.g.i. caps, is a policy issue that should be handled by the authorizing committee. not during the appropriations process. more specifically, this issue is a farm bill issue, if you will, and it is currently being considered in the context of the joint deck committee process, the supersubcommittee. the chairwoman has described in detail our efforts, both the house principals and the chairwoman and myself in submitting to the joint debt committee our suggestions on how we can meet our deficit reduction responsibilities. so as people consider this amendment, i think it's important to remember that the 2008 farm bill, as the chairwoman has indicated, included the most comprehensive and far-reaching reform to farm promise eligibility requirements

in 20 years. that included reform to the a.g.i. caps, to which the coburn amendment refers. it is also important for my colleagues to understand that the adjusted gross income for a farmer is not pure profit. personal expenses and servicing of debt must still be covered, given the capital-intensive nature of farming and the cost of inputs such as land and machinery, servicing debt alone can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. so supporters of these limits all tend to talk about how few -- how few farmers would be impacted by these caps. but the advocates also only tend to look at farmers who file schedule-f tax forms. this rather simple police sticks approach fails to reflect the fact that most directions that could be directly impacted by the a.g.i. caps that they are recommending do not file schedule f-tax returns because

of how they have chosen to organize their farming operations. therefore, most advocates of these caps seriously underestimate the number of producers and the share of acres for production that would be left without a safety net. to make matters works because this limit would be implemented using the appropriations legislation instead of authorizing legislation, it would not repeal the already existing a.g.i. limits of $750,000 for on-farm income and $500,000 for off-farm income. in other words, this amendment would simply add another layer -- another cap -- another layer of bureaucracy to the already existing structure, further complicating usda's work on this issue at tha at the time when rs are extremely limited and when we are going to be in the process of wit ago new farm bill

-- of writing a new farm bill not to mention meeting our deficit obligations to the supercommittee. therefore, i encourage my colleagues to oppose the coburn amendment and allow the agricultural committees to address this issue in the appropriate venue. i yield back, mr. president. mr. president, a careful objection by this member would indicate that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i ask unanimous consent to -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. blunt: i'm sorry. i suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the mccain amendment 741. the presiding officer: wowjts.

mr. blunt: and on behalf of senator demint, i ask consent to set aside the pending amendment and offer amendment 763 and 764 en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: and -- the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: mr. blunt for mr. demint offers amendment numbered 763 and 764 en bloc. the presiding officermr. blunt:, mr. president, it appears there is not a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i notice nobody on the floor seeking recognition. i ask consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, if i could just speak briefly -- and of course i'll yield the floor if somebody comes forward and actually wants to do something here. but i'd like to speak to an amendment 753 to h.r. 2112 by the distinguished senator from new hampshire, senator ayotte. the amendment i believe would tie the hands of our national security and law enforcement efforts to secure our national

security. i'm a little bit concerned the amendment is being offered at this time. you know, just a week ago we learned of the foiled asenior senator nation attempt in the united states of the saudi ambassador to the u.s. we learned that because the justice department, the d.e.a., thephyte, others -- the f.b.i., others worked very closely to stop what would have been an horrific, who have riffic terrorist attack on our soil against a foreign national, an ambassador. we pride ourselves on protecting ambassadors from other countries as we expect them to protect american ambassadors in their countries. now, i was pleased in that instance that we didn't do the quarterbacking of saying,

whoever we picked up should go to guantanamo. i think about when we had a terrorist -- the so-called underwear bomber on christmas day who was going to attempt to blow up a plane. and we heard a whole lot of people come on the floor of this body and say, oh, we can't try them in federal court. we can't stand up for the principles of america, we can't show the rest of the world that we're strong enough to actually follow our constitution. we've got to lock him up somewhere. by the way, what are we doing giving him miranda rights having arrested him here in the united states? well, great bumper sticker slogans, mr. president. the fact of the matter is -- the fact of the matter is, anybody who's been a prosecutor knows, if somebody is going to confess, they're going to confess --

could we have order, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. leahy: the fact of the matter is, if somebody is going to confess, as most prosecutors snow, they're going to confess whether you give them their rights or not. the f.b.i., the attorney general did the right thing, and this man just kept on talking and kept on talking. and then what happened? after we were told by so many that it would be horrible if we actually followed our constitution and prosecuted this man in a federal court. we'd never get a conviction. we prosecuted him. he pled guilty. he pled guilty, mr. president, after having given us all kinds of information. he now faces a potential life sentence. i mention that because those who say waoerpbld do this behind -- we should only do this behind

closed doors in some kind of military tribunal, we have had between three and five prosecutions in military tribunals. we've had 440 terrorism-related convictions in open courts following our constitution, following the best of america. the president, the national security team in the last two and a half years have been doing a great job. the president ordered a successful strike on osama bin laden. we almost ignored him. the president talked to the c.i.a. and said let's go after him. they did. they got anwar al-awlaki. went after him. got him. the president's assistant for

homeland security counterterrorism, john brennan, said last month results of this approach are undeniable. al qaeda's been crippled. now i'll put most of my statement in the record, but, mr. president, i was not going to speak but as a former prosecutor, as one who prosecuted not terrorism cases, but i prosecuted murder cases and very serious criminal cases, i have absolute faith in those in our federal courts, prosecutors and law enforcement to bring terrorists to justice. but the last thing i want to see, mr. president, is this body that has no responsibility for prosecuting anybody. none of us are the ones going to court. none of us are the ones who bring cases before a jury.

none of us are the ones who have to face down a terrorist. none of us are the ones who have to recommend somebody go to jail. for us to say we will decide in the future who can be prosecuted and who can't, that is a bad, bad, bad deal. the executive branch has those options, and they have been doing a pretty darned good job in their convictions. so, for us, for us to try to second-guess and tell our prosecutor what you might do and something that's going to happen in the future that we know nothing about is not responsible. we would never do this to a state prosecutor. why should we do it to our federal prosecutors who are so well equipped to handle these

cases? there have been more than 440 terrorism-related convictions in federal courts since september 11. 78 of them in the last couple of years. this amendment would take away from the attorney general his constitutional responsibilities. well, let me tell you, i cannot imagine any prosecutor, republican or democrat, in the country who would want to see this passed. every prosecutor wants to have every tool possible to determine what court it's going to go into. i say those who talked about the underwear bomber, what a terrible mistake it was to follow our rules, our constitution, the things that can make us praourpbd the world, those who say how terrible it was, look at the headline.

he was convicted. he was convicted. you go and read the information. he gave us so much information. we never would have gotten if we had followed what some others were saying we should do. we spent over 200 years developing this process. we spent over 200 years developing our criminal justice system. we spent over 200 years developing our courts and federal prosecution. don't think any one of us can stand up here and something that might tkpwhraobgd in -- might lk good in a sound bite try to pass an amendment to overturn that. it's working pretty darned well. mr. president, i ask my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. stphao* quorum call:-- quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, i ask con sense to set aside the -- the speaker pro tempore: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. lautenberg: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: further, i ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and all call -- and call up my amendment number 836. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new jersey, mr. lautenberg, for himself and others proposes an amendment numbered 836 to amendment 7 -- mr. lautenberg:

i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: this would fund disaster relief grants at the economic development relief administration. we all know this has been a record year for natural disasters. our country has already experienced a record ten natural disasters that cost more than a billion dollars each time. hurricane irene alone caused more than $7 billion in damages along the east coast. in my home state of new jersey, 11 people lost their lives as a result of the hurricane. and while president obama came to my hometown of paterson, new jersey, to see the damage firsthand, i must point out that we are still almost across the country in the wake of huge

storms that demand attention and will require substantial funding. now, in my hometown of patterson, new jersey, we witnessed unforgettable images. the streets and sidewalks were covered in mud and in some homes the second floor was also covered with mud. but new jersey's not alone. as i said, there have been extremely severe storms across the country, and flooding and tornadoes devastated the midwest and the south. as a result, fema has declared federal disasters in all but two states this year. in the wake of these disasters, we've seen the american people pulling together, neighbor helping neighbor, to put their lives back together. furniture out on the lawn,

memorabilia out so water soaked that it's valueless in terms of recalling memory. it's painful to witness and when you see families standing together holding hands, wondering what is going to happen to them, we look to our country, they say to help us recover from this disaster, perhaps we'll never quite get over it, but we can use the help desperately. the federal government has to do its part. i'm pleased that the commerce, justice, science bill that we're considering includes emergency funding for disaster relief grants at the economic development administration, and i thank senator mcdul mikulski,r her good work as chairman on

this bill. but the needs all across the country are overwhelming and more disaster assistance is needed. now, this amendment increases the funding for e.d.a. disaster relief grants by $365 million. to a total of $500 million of availability. and i pointed out that many of these disasters themselves have $1 billion worth of damage. the amendment -- my amendment is cosponsored by senator sanders, menendez, gillibrand, blumenthal and leahy. and i thank them for their support. any area that received a federal declaration -- disaster declaration this year would be eligible to compete for this disaster relief. including areas in 48 states so far this year.

and i want to be clear. natural disasters devastate local economies, causing damage -- damages that can linger for years. fema reimburses local government homeowners for repairs in the immediate aftermath of a storm, but e.d.a. grants are needed to help communities get back on track for recovery and economic revitalization in the wake of a major -- in the wake of a major disaster. communities use these disaster relief funds to repair damaged public infrastructure such as sewer and drinking water systems, and states use the e.d.a. grants to create and coordinate efficient disaster response and recovery plans. additionally, local governments and nonprofits can lend e.d.a. disaster relief funds to

businesses to help our private sector to rebuild and to grow. congress has recognized the valve this program in the past. during the past five years we've provided more than $550 million in e.d.a. emergency disaster relief funds. and this includes $500 million in emergency supplemental funding for e.d.a. in 2008 to respond to the hurricanes that devastated the south and the heavy rains that caused massive flooding flute the midwest. -- throughout the midwest. mr. president, when these areas were in need, congress came together and extended a helping -- and extended a helping hand. and, unfortunately, we've got to do so again now. the funding in my amendment complies with the disaster relief provisions included in the budget control act and it's not offset with cuts from other

programs in the bill. when disaster strikes, victims don't want us to reach for the budget ax. they want us to help them build an recover. we all recognize that our country faces serious fiscal challenges. but we cannot put a price on human lives. nothing is more important than protecting our communities, our families, and our economy. hurricane irene and many other natural disasters hit our country of this year, causing widespread damage that's going to require a massive rebuilding effort. the american people are looking to us -- to the federal government to lend a helping hand, and i point out again the picture of what disaster like this can do, where water is virtually up to the second floor, and this is -- was repeated across the state of new jersey and many other states as

a result of hurricane irene. and with that, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. though there are squabbles about funding for various programs, at no time is the help more urgently needed than now again right after the storms have hit, left terrible devastation, and people urging and pleading with us, "gives the help." and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. with that, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, we've worked long and hard -- the presiding officer: we're a in a quorum call. mr. reid: oh, i'm so sorry.

didn't know the senator from new jersey called for a quorum. i ask that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, we've worked very hard this whole week trying to move forward on legislation dealing with our appropriations bills. it's been difficult. one reason it's been difficult is it's kind after new area we're working in. that is, legislating. i was very impressed to see senator mikulski talk with great clarity about how nice it was for her to again be legislating, but we're not there yet. we were thoapg have a number of votes today and tonight, but we haven't been able to do that. we're getting close. our staffs are working very hard to come up with an agreement. we hope we can do it tonight to set up a series of four to six votes in the morning and then hopefully a pathway to complete this legislation. we have other issues that we have -- that always -- you know, we have to do more than one thing at a time. so we're going to move forward, the republican leader and me, on

filing a couple of cloture petitions that we're going to recipient for votes either friday or hopefully we can get them done tomorrow. and we're going to -- mr. mcconnell: if i could just echo the remarks of my friend. we do have a number of amendments pending. we're working our way in the direction of getting back to a normal process here and i share the majority leader's hope and his view that we will have a number of votes hopefully tomorrow as a result of an agreement we're working on. mr. reid: mr. president, i move to proceed to calendar number 204, s. 1723. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion motion to proceed to s. 1723, a bill to.for teacher and first responders stablization. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on

hereby move to bring to a close debate on the mows to proceed to calendar number 204, s. 1723, the teachers and first responders back-to-work act signed by 18 senators as follows: mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask consent that the names not be necessary to be read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: that it not be necessary the names be read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. reid: ask consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i withdraw my motion to proceed to calendar number 204. the presiding officer: maks motion is withdrawn. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i now move to proceed to calendar number 205, s. 1726, and i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to s. 1726,

the withholding tax relief act of 2011, soo signed by 16 senats as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading of the aims nails be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i withdraw the motion. the presiding officer: the motion is withdrawn. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, we've tried, as i indicated earlier, most all today to have some votes. we were unable to do that. we're not going to have anymore votes tonight. i've spoken with the republican leader. we've done the best we can for today. there'll be more business here on the floor this evening. hopefully we'll be able to recipient some votes tomorrow. so we're -- i apologize to everyone for not being able to have some votes or have some way of moving forward. but we've done, as i indicated, the best we can. i guess the good news is some people will be able to watch the world series. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i be ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: thank you. as you know, hurricane irene and tropical storm lee left a trail of devastation all across new york. i saw firsthand the impact that they left on our communities. complete homes ruined, entire streets seven feet of water, all people's belongings on their front yard. small business basically uncertain as to whether they could rebuild, whether they could retire employees.

crumbling bridges, washed out roads, farms with no feed for livestock,