[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 31 (Tuesday, March 5, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1103-S1104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES BY COMMITTEES

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 64, which the clerk will report 
by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 64) authorizing expenditures by 
     committees of the Senate for the period March 1, 2013, 
     through September 30, 2013.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank Senator Paul, who is 
going to be offering his amendment in a few minutes, for allowing me to 
go first. I would like to spend a few minutes speaking in opposition to 
the Paul amendment.
  I wish to talk about the Senate National Security Working Group, 
which will be the subject of the Paul amendment. This group, along with 
its predecessor organization, the Senate Arms Control Observer Group, 
has served a useful role in helping the Senate to fulfill its unique 
constitutional duty to consider treaties and to provide its advice and 
consent to their ratification.
  The Senate National Security Working Group is a key component of the 
Senate's ability to provide advice on treaties before those treaties 
are finalized because the working group begins meeting with the 
administration early in the process of negotiation. This was the case 
for the Senate consideration of the New START treaty a few years ago. 
The National Security Working Group convened a series of briefings and 
meetings with the administration starting at the very beginning of the 
negotiation process, and through the group the Senate has many 
opportunities to learn of the progress and details of negotiations and 
to provide our advice and views to the administration throughout the 
process.
  Let me first assure my colleagues that throughout the entire New 
START negotiation process, the members of the National Security Working 
Group asked a great number of questions, received answers at a number 
of meetings, stayed abreast of the negotiation details, and provided 
advice to the administration. It is a vital process that not only 
allows Senators to engage the administration early in the negotiation 
process, but it also gives the administration an opportunity to respond 
to Senators' concerns and questions and to guide the process in such a 
manner as to avoid problems during Senate consideration of the treaty 
ratification process. That was, in fact, the principal original purpose 
of the Arms Control Observer Group, which ensured early Senate 
engagement during the negotiation process. This process helps to ensure 
that there is a core of Senators who are informed on treaty matters 
before the Senate takes up ratification, and through those Senators the 
entire Senate can have a role.
  I also want to mention briefly to my colleagues that the National 
Security Working Group is perhaps unique among Senate institutions in 
that it is, by design, purely bipartisan. It is actually composed of an 
equal number of Senators from each side of the aisle. Its decisions and 
actions are not controlled by the majority party; they are arrived at 
entirely through bipartisan agreement--something we could use more of 
around here. The bipartisan nature of the group, which is central to 
its function and its crucial role in helping the Senate fulfill its 
constitutional treaty role, is something we should support and 
continue.
  We expect there are going to be some additional preliminary 
negotiations and discussions about those negotiations this year. It is 
very important that this National Security Working Group continues to 
have the ability to pave the way for negotiations that can be fruitful.
  As I yield the floor, I again thank Senator Paul for his courtesy in 
allowing me to go first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, as some of you may have heard, we are a bit 
short of money. We are borrowing $50,000 every second. We borrow over 
$4 billion every day. In a year's time we borrow over $1 trillion. 
There are ramifications to that. Some economists now say that the 
burden of our debt is costing us 1 million jobs a year. What I am 
asking is, in the midst of this sequester when people say we have no 
money to cut, to take this small item.
  Why would I want to cut this small group? There are a couple of 
reasons. It is called the National Security Working Group--about $2.8 
million, which is not much money in terms of Washington. But why would 
I want to cut it?
  The first reason would be that there are no records of them meeting. 
We heard about the START treaty. It was in 2009 when they were last 
meeting. There are no public records that this group, which spends 
$700,000 a year, has met in the last 3 years. There are no public 
records of who works for the committee. There are no public records of 
their salaries. Every one of my staff's name and salary is printed in 
the public record--not for this group.
  Now, they say we need this group to negotiate treaties. Well, we have 
a group; it is called the Foreign Relations Committee. I am on the 
Foreign Relations Committee, and that is where we discuss treaties--or 
at least we are supposed to. The Foreign Relations Committee has dozens 
of employees, and millions of dollars are spent on our committee. It 
goes through the regular process. Our staff's salaries are approved, 
the names are in the public record, and if you object, you know where 
to look for the information. To fund a group that has no records and no 
records of them meeting and doesn't tell you where they are paying the 
salaries I don't think makes any sense.
  Our job is to look at the money as if it were ours, as if it were 
yours, and pay attention to detail.
  Will this balance the budget? No. Is it a place we should start? Yes. 
Absolutely. What I would call for is looking and saving where we can. 
In my office, I have a $3.5 million budget. I saved $600,000 last year, 
and I turned it back in to the Treasury. That doesn't balance the 
budget, but we have to start somewhere. This is another $700,000. If I 
win this one vote, I could save $700,000--or at least save us from 
borrowing another $700,000. If all of your elected officials were up 
here doing the same, we would be much closer to a resolution. I turned 
in $600,000 to the Treasury--18 percent of my budget--and I didn't lay 
off anybody because we are careful about the way we spend. We spend as 
if it were our own money. If all of our public officials were doing 
that, imagine what we could do.
  I have another bill that will never see the light of day up here 
because they don't want to fix anything. This bill would give bonuses 
to civil servants--Federal employees--who find savings. Right now we do 
the opposite. If your budget is $12 million and you work somewhere in 
the bureaucracy of government, you want to spend it at the

[[Page S1104]]

end of the year so you can get it next year.
  I would change that incentive. I would give that civil servant a 
significant bonus if they will keep money at the end of the year and 
turn it back in to the Treasury. Can you imagine the savings from top 
to bottom throughout government if we did that? But if we were to do 
that, to ask civil servants to do that and look for these savings--and 
right now, with the sequester, people throughout government are looking 
for savings--why shouldn't we start with the Senate?
  Why would we continue to fund a group where the work they supposedly 
do is also done officially by another group which has many employees, a 
large staff, and it is the constitutional mandate of the Foreign 
Relations Committee to discuss treaties.
  So while this is a small bit of money, it is symbolic of what needs 
to go on in this country in order to rectify a problem that is truly 
bankrupting the American people.


                            Amendment No. 25

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 25.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 25.

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

  (Purpose: To strike supplemental staff funding available only to a 
         limited number of Senators in a time of sequestration)

       On page 31, line 22, strike ``In general.--The Senate 
     National'' and insert the following: ``Reconstitution.--
       (A) In general.--The Senate National
       On page 32, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as extending or providing funding authority to the 
     Working Group.
       On page 35, strike line 2 and all that follows through page 
     36, line 3, and insert the following:
       (1) Designation of professional staff.--
       On page 36, strike line 14 and all that follows through 
     page 37, line 2.
       On page 37, line 3, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
       On page 37, line 8, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       On page 37, line 10, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 37, strike lines 13 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       (2) Leadership staff.--The majority leader of the Senate 
     and the minority leader of the Senate may each designate 2 
     staff members who shall be responsible to the respective 
     leader.
       On page 37, line 23, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 39, strike line 3 and all that follows through page 
     40, line 2.
       On page 40, line 3, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(c)''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays when 
appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the call of 
the quorum be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we yield back the remainder of all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
  The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the 
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Laugenberg),and the Senator from Colorado 
(Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Burr
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Landrieu
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter

                                NAYS--53

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Begich
     Lautenberg
     Udall (CO)
  The amendment (No. 25) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The resolution (S. Res. 64) was agreed to.
  (The resolution is printed in the Record of Thursday, February 28, 
2013, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________