[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.'')
____________________