[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1967-S1975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND 
             FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 933.
  The clerk will report the bill.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 933) to make appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other 
     departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 2013, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Mikulski-Shelby) modified amendment No. 26, in 
     the nature of a substitute.
       Toomey amendment No. 115 (to amendment No. 26), to increase 
     by $60,000,000 the amount appropriated for operation and 
     maintenance for the Department of Defense for programs, 
     projects, and activities in the continental United States, 
     and to provide an offset.
       Durbin amendment No. 123 (to amendment No. 115), to change 
     the enactment date.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the continuing appropriations legislation. The 
time until 11:15 a.m. today will be divided and controlled equally 
between the two leaders or their designees.
  At 11:15 a.m. there will be three rollcall votes in relation to the 
continuing resolution: the Toomey amendment, which is a 60-vote 
threshold; adoption of the Mikulski-Shelby substitute amendment; and a 
cloture vote on H.R. 933, the underlying bill.


                             Budget Debate

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the last few years my Republican 
colleagues have been hollering, yelling, and screaming that the Senate 
has not passed a budget. They have done so in spite of the fact that 
Republicans in both Chambers voted for the Budget Control Act which set 
spending levels for the last 2 years. It was a law. Every reasonable 
political observer admits that the Budget Control Act, which had the 
force of law, was a budget, period. No, it was not a resolution. It was 
a law, which is much stronger than any resolution we do here.
  As I indicated, they have yelled and screamed. Still, Republicans 
pine for the days of the so-called regular order when the Senate would 
vote on a budget resolution that would set spending priorities for the 
fiscal year. Republicans--we were told, we heard, we saw--were 
desperate to have a budget debate. They were desperate. They have had 
charts out here. They were desperate for an amendment. They wanted a 
vote-arama. They had charts, speeches, and demonstrations to prove it.
  They have had press conference after press conference after press 
conference. They even had a calendar they brought out almost daily 
tallying the days since the Senate passed a budget resolution--not a 
law, which was already in effect, but a resolution.
  Yesterday I was amazed, flabbergasted, and stunned when Republicans 
blocked attempts to begin debate on the budget resolution. In fact, the 
ranking member of the Budget

[[Page S1968]]

Committee said: Let's put it off for a while. Let's wait until after 
Easter.
  Can you imagine that? They have been pining for regular order, and we 
now have a chance to have a debate. They said: No, we can't do that. 
Can't do it. There was a chance, and they were not interested in doing 
it.
  My friend, the junior Senator from Kansas, objected to a request 
debating the budget unless we vote on his proposed amendment to the 
continuing resolution. He is concerned about air traffic towers in 
Kansas because of these across-the-board cuts.
  I say to all of my colleagues--I say to the Senator from Kansas--we 
are all concerned about the impact of these budget cuts. They are 
senseless, they are ridiculous, and we should do away with them. We 
have already cut $2.5 trillion from the debt. We can continue to do it 
but do it in a responsible and reasonable way, not a meat-cleaver way.
  More than 100 families in Nevada--almost immediately--are going to 
lose access to low-income housing because of the sequester. I met with 
the housing authority people yesterday. Some might say: Oh, that is not 
such a big deal. It is a big deal for those 100 families. Nationwide, 
70,000 little boys and girls are going to lose their ability to go to 
Head Start. Some may ask: What is that? Head Start will allow them to 
get started in life.
  These cuts--and I have only mentioned a few of them--are painful for 
millions of Americans, and it is only going to get worse. They are 
arbitrary.
  We are all concerned. The concern for the sequester is not focused on 
the Senate delegation from Kansas, it is all over. Instead of whining 
about it, let's do something about it. Let's get rid of it. That is why 
the Senate Democratic budget proposal actually reverses the sequester. 
That is one way of doing it, but there are other ways.
  The policy outlined in Senator Murray's budget will save hundreds of 
thousands of jobs, safeguard communities by keeping police, air traffic 
controllers, and meat inspectors on the job. Reversing the sequester 
would alleviate Senator Moran's concern about air traffic controllers 
in Kansas. The Senate cannot debate a thoughtful way to replace the 
sequester if the Republicans will not even let us debate our budget 
proposal.
  We know Republicans and Democrats will not agree on every aspect of 
the budget which sets priorities for how the government spends money 
and how it saves money. Republicans have one plan for Medicare. Their 
plan is to turn it into a voucher program which will change Medicare 
forever. Democrats have another plan. The Democrats' plan is to 
preserve and protect Medicare for our children and grandchildren.
  Republicans have a plan for taxes. Listen to this one: They want to 
lower taxes for the rich and let the middle class foot the bill. 
Democrats have another plan. We believe the wealthiest individuals and 
corporations should contribute a little bit more to reduce the deficit. 
Surprisingly, the intelligent American people agree with us--Democrats, 
Independents, and Republicans--by almost a 60-percent margin. The only 
Republicans in America who disagree are those who serve in Congress.
  Republicans have one plan to reduce the deficit which will rely on 
harsh austerity that shortchanges the elderly, veterans, middle class, 
poor, and others. The Democrats have another plan. We have a balanced 
approach that couples smart spending cuts with new revenue from closing 
loopholes that benefit the wealthiest Americans.
  We have our differences, and that is fine. But Democrats are willing 
to discuss these differences; we are willing to debate the issues. 
Let's debate the issues. The Republicans have said for months and 
months: Let's debate the budget. Why can't we debate the budget? 
Because they will not let us.
  This is senseless. We have 60 hours of doing nothing--nothing. The 
American people are on our side. This is a debate we can win, but at 
least let's have the debate.
  Will the Chair announce the business of the day.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11:15 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are not in a quorum call, are we?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are not.
  Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be divided equally.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally 
divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss with my colleagues here 
in the Senate an amendment I have filed to the continuing resolution 
that is now pending before the Senate. It is amendment No. 55. I have 
spoken about this issue on the floor previously this week but want to 
reiterate the merits of this amendment and ask my colleagues for their 
support.
  Amendment No. 55 deals with this issue of air traffic control towers. 
Under the administration's plan in implementing sequestration, the plan 
is to close, on April 7--just a few days from now--173 air traffic 
control towers across the country. The amendment I wish to offer avoids 
that. The administration would no longer be able to do that. I believe 
they should not for numerous reasons, but what we do, in order to 
accomplish that, is to transfer $50 million from two accounts, one 
dealing with research at the Department of Transportation and one 
dealing with unencumbered balances.
  This is an example of what we have talked about before: that we can 
make better decisions than across-the-board cuts. In fact, the 
amendment I wish to offer deals with an issue that is not even an 
across-the-board cut.
  In closing the contract towers, in eliminating the Contract Tower 
Program, the administration is cutting that program 75 percent. 
Sequestration is described to us as, in most circumstances, an across-
the-board 5-percent cut. The amendment I wish to offer continues the 5-
percent cut. That would occur for the air traffic Contract Tower 
Program, so that they would be treated like other programs at the 
Department of Transportation and throughout government, that they are 
not singled out for elimination of a program, resulting in a 75-percent 
reduction in that program's funding, not just the more minor 5 percent. 
So the administration's decision to close contract towers is far from 
balanced, and in choosing this program, in my view, has taken the 
opportunity to damage the safety and security of the flying public of 
America.
  I want to talk about that in a moment. But there was also the 
suggestion that this is a provincial argument on my part, that it is 
something I care specifically about for Kansas, my home State. 
Certainly there is not anything wrong with caring about our home 
States. That is what we do here, and it is part of our responsibility. 
But this is far from just being a Kansas issue. Many States and Members 
of the Senate are more greatly affected by this cut, this elimination, 
than my home State.
  In fact, this amendment has the sponsorship of 26 Republican and 
Democratic cosponsors. More Democratic Senators here are cosponsors of 
this amendment than Republican Senators. It is Senators Roberts, 
Inhofe, Blumenthal, Blunt, Johanns, Kirk, Manchin, Hagan, Klobuchar, 
Baucus, Tester, Enzi, Vitter, Boozman, Pryor, Merkley, Wyden, Kaine, 
Warner, Ayotte, Shaheen, Risch, Crapo, Murphy, Rockefeller, and Wicker.
  It does not sound very provincial to me. In fact, 42 States will have 
their air traffic control towers eliminated. This amendment is broadly 
supported by the aviation industry. If there is an aspect of this that 
is unique to Kansas, it is that we manufacture many general aviation 
aircraft. We are the air capital of the world. But this amendment, 
while being supported by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, by 
National Business Aviation

[[Page S1969]]

Association, the National Air Transportation Association, is also 
supported by the American Association of Airport Executives and the 
National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
  Again, it is not a very provincial amendment when sponsored by so 
many of my colleagues, affecting 40-some--43 States of the United 
States, and broadly supported by the aviation industry as a reasonable, 
commonsense solution to a problem we face.
  I have been adamant about bringing this amendment to the floor. I am 
a member of the Appropriations Committee. I will have the opportunity--
in fact, I serve on the subcommittee that deals with the Department of 
Transportation. I should and hope to have the opportunity to deal with 
this and other issues related to the Department of Transportation in 
the normal appropriations process that, hopefully, will follow the 
passage of a budget. So I ought to be in a position to be helpful to 
the cause I believe in at a point later in time.
  But here is the problem: The air traffic control towers will close on 
April 7. We will never get to an appropriations process between now, 
here at the end of March, and April 7. So the Appropriations Committee 
and, ultimately, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the 
President will never have the ability to restore a program that is gone 
April 7.
  So while I have tried to put myself in a position to be helpful to 
the cause in the long run, there is no long-run battle to be fought 
because the control towers are gone in just a matter of a few short 
days.
  This amendment matters. This is my last opportunity. If and when 
cloture is invoked later today on the underlying bill, there is no 
opportunity for amendments to be considered. So my colleagues who 
indicate to me so strongly that they support my amendment, this is the 
only opportunity we have to have success.
  This clearly is not about my success in an amendment. Although I 
would love to have the opportunity for this amendment to be voted on, 
it may or may not pass. But the Senate ought to work its will in making 
that determination. With the broad support of the industry, with the 
broad support of my colleagues here in the Senate, one would think this 
is an amendment which is at least worthy of a vote. That has not been 
the case.
  So it is important for me to again reiterate to my colleagues that if 
you invoke cloture this afternoon or later this morning, if you invoke 
cloture, there is no other opportunity for us to address this issue, 
this problem. So let me again request the opportunity.
  I lay awake last night from 3:30 on trying to figure out what it is I 
can say to my colleagues to get their attention about why this is so 
important. There are lots of things that can be said. We have so little 
time before this is either a program that existed in the past and will 
no longer exist in the future--the consequences are so dramatic that I 
would again ask my colleagues for their assistance in at least bringing 
the amendment to the floor so that the Senate can make a decision, yes 
or no, about the merits of the amendment.
  This is about safety. There was an article I just happened to read 
today in reading my clips from Kansas. This is in a Kansas paper, but 
it is an AP story from Chicago. The article is entitled ``Trouble in 
the Air,'' and here is what the AP reporter writes about the planned 
shutdown. The article says:

       The planned shutdown of nearly 240 air traffic control 
     towers across the country under federal budget cuts will 
     strip away an extra layer of safety during takeoffs and 
     landings, leaving pilots to manage the most critical stages 
     of flight on their own.
       But airport directors and pilots say there is little doubt 
     that the removal of this second pair of eyes on the ground 
     increases risk and will slow the progress that has made the 
     U.S. air system the safest in the world.
       It's not just private pilots in small planes who stand to 
     be affected. Many of the airports in question are serviced by 
     major airlines, and the cuts could leave towers unmanned 
     during overnight hours that some big-city airports such as 
     Chicago's Midway and General Mitchell Airport in Milwaukee. 
     The plans have prompted airlines to review whether the 
     changes might pose problems for commercial service that could 
     mean canceling or rescheduling flights.
       Without the help of controllers, risk ``goes up 
     exponentially,'' said Mark Hanna, director of the Abraham 
     Lincoln Capital Airport in Springfield, Ill., which could see 
     its tower close.
       But many in the aviation sector are frustrated by the 
     political brinkmanship in Washington that has affected such a 
     sensitive area of aviation. Jim Montman, manager of the Santa 
     Fe Municipal Airport, which is on the list for tower 
     closures, said the absence of controllers raised the risk of 
     midair collisions ``or some sort of incident where somebody 
     lands on the wrong runway. . . . That critical link is 
     gone.''
       Pilots are trained to watch for other aircraft and announce 
     their position over the radio during approaches, landings and 
     takeoffs. But past crashes, however rare, have exposed 
     weaknesses in that system. On November 19, 1996, a 19-seat 
     United Express flight landing in Quincy, Ill., collided with 
     another twin-engine turboprop that was taking off. They 
     slammed into each other at the intersection of two runways, 
     killing all 14 people aboard the two planes. The National 
     Transportation Safety Board concluded the probable cause was 
     a failure of the pilot in the outbound flight to monitor the 
     radio frequency for air traffic and to properly scan for 
     other planes. ``If a tower was there, it's highly likely that 
     the accident would have been prevented,'' said Hanna, who 
     became the director of the Quincy airport about two years 
     after the crash.
       The 238 air traffic control facilities that could be closed 
     were chosen because they are at airports with fewer than 
     150,000 flight operations per year. They are located in every 
     state.

  Again, the point of this amendment is not whether or not I find the 
right words to convince my colleagues to allow this amendment to come 
to a vote. As much as I struggled through the morning hours trying to 
figure out what those might be, the real issue is not about my words or 
my personal success in getting this amendment considered, but it is 
about the safety of Americans.
  I cannot figure out why this amendment cannot be made in order. 
Again, broad support--broad support with Republicans and Democrats. I 
have had many Senators, including very senior Senators from the 
Democratic side of the aisle, come to me and express amazement that 
this amendment, so broadly supported, so important, cannot be 
considered. I cannot come up with an explanation. I do not know why 
this is the case.
  Every Senator I have talked to about this amendment tells me they do 
not oppose it, it ought to be voted on, they support it. Yet for some 
reason the Senate is incapable of agreeing to even a vote on an 
important and critical amendment that promotes the safety of the 
American people. I can only guess--and it is always difficult to 
attribute motives, but as I talk to my colleagues, the only explanation 
I ever get that has any semblance of truth is that there is a point to 
be made here. By denying the amendment's passage, we prove that 
sequestration cannot work; we cannot cut money from budgets.
  Again, I did not vote for sequestration. So when the majority leader 
says this morning about the hatchet being taken to programs and it is 
all bad--I did not vote for sequestration. I believe in the 
appropriations process that allows us to make these decisions to 
increase funding for some things, decrease funding for other things, 
and eliminate programs. Yet sequestration, in my view, has an effect 
upon all programs equally, whether they are effective or ineffective, 
whether they are valuable or invaluable. We treat them the same.
  So I am not here on the cause of sequestration, but apparently there 
are those in this city, in Washington, DC, who want to make the point 
that if the air traffic control towers are eliminated, it will 
demonstrate once and for all--I don't know; to Republican Senators, to 
Senators in general, to Congress, to the American people--that there is 
no opportunity to cut budgets.
  If people want to make that point and if they can convince people 
that it is true that there is no opportunity to eliminate $85 billion 
in spending, that is fine with me. That is what this place exists for, 
is for us to have the debate about whether we can reduce spending, 
increase spending, what our Tax Code ought to be, what the value is of 
government services and programs and how they ought to be funded. But 
if it is true that the reason this amendment is not being considered is 
because we want to prove a point--that there is no money to be cut, 
that sequestration is a bad idea, that reducing spending is a bad idea, 
that we have to raise taxes--if that is the point that is trying to be 
made here in the process of denying this amendment's consideration, 
then

[[Page S1970]]

it is a very dangerous way to try to prove a point.

  Prove your point in argument and debate about the merits of spending, 
about the merits of the program. Prove your point in the Appropriations 
Committee, in which we take testimony and hear from people about what 
is important to them, priorities, what their needs are, what their 
wants are, what has value, what does not. But do not try to make the 
political point about this topic by reducing the safety of people who 
fly in and out of communities across the country. As the article said, 
this reduces the nature of our air traveling safety from the best in 
the world to something less than that.
  So make the point. Have the debate and argument about the value of 
sequestration, about the value of what money we spend and do not spend. 
But let's not try to prove the point by reducing the chances that the 
American people, when they travel, are safe and secure in our airways.
  I do not know, and I hope this is never the case--this point may 
never be proven about the safety, but once there is an accident and 
someone dies and a plane crashes, the question will always be, what if 
there had been an air traffic control tower there? What if we had left 
the program in place?
  These communities that have the air traffic control towers have spent 
years in developing a plan to put them in place, have worked with the 
FAA and the Department of Transportation over decades to bring their 
airports and airport safety, flying safety to high standards. An issue 
here is that this is going to disappear overnight. So you can be an 
airport manager, an airport authority, a member of an airport board 
anyplace in the country with 200-plus air traffic control towers, and 
you have worked hard over years, decades, to get the standards in place 
and to have the air traffic control process at your airport. In one 
day, April 7, one night, the lights go off in the tower. They no longer 
exist. All the work you have tried to accomplish on behalf of your 
community and those who fly in and out of your airport disappears in 
one stroke.
  So I speak with a level of passion about this issue, for really the 
purpose of which I think we are here to do, which is to advance the 
common good of the American people. It is not a provincial amendment. 
It is not something that just Moran and Kansas need. There are many 
States much more affected by this. But the truth is that every 
American, every person who flies will have less safety and security in 
the skies as a result of this issue, as a result of the decision made 
by the Department of Transportation to eliminate this program.
  So, once again, I intend to ask later in the morning, when our 
leaders are on the floor, for unanimous consent to bring this amendment 
forward before the time expires. In my time in Congress--I have only 
been in the Senate a little more than 2 years--I have not been trying 
to be obstreperous. I have not tried to be difficult to deal with. I 
believe in the opportunity to reach out and work together. I followed 
the rules. I did what everybody tells me to do: Go find people who 
support this amendment who are Democrats and Republicans, bring them 
together.
  And as the leader said earlier in the week--I guess it is now last 
week--earlier last week about how we are going to get back to regular 
order, we are going to have amendments offered, I hope we can dispose 
of them quickly, we have an opportunity to do that with this amendment. 
It is not controversial. It is not partisan. It is about something that 
ought to be of importance to all Americans, certainly to every Senator.
  Later in the morning when the leaders are present, I will ask 
unanimous consent once again that we consider this amendment. I know 
there are others who want to offer amendments. I see my colleagues from 
Arkansas and Missouri on the floor. I know they have an amendment--I 
think it is No. 82--with which they want to offer the opportunity to 
address a problem by taking money from one account and putting it in 
another account in order to keep meatpacking plants operational, that 
we have the meat inspectors present at the plants. Boy, that is an 
important issue too. That is about the safety and security of 
Americans. It is about food safety. I hope no one objects to the 
amendment Senators Pryor and Blunt are going to offer this morning. 
That is another amendment which is very similar in nature, about 
deciding that we are smarter to spend money here than here.
  As the Pryor-Blunt amendment comes before the floor, I would ask my 
colleagues, just as I would ask them to grant unanimous consent, I hope 
no one objects to their request for unanimous consent that their 
amendment be considered. I would ask that no one object to the 
amendment I intend to offer. I certainly will not object to the Blunt-
Pryor amendment. I wish it was leverage to get my amendment considered, 
but it is too dangerous to play that game. That is what we do here in 
Washington, DC, is strike a deal. In this case, when we strike that 
deal, we are leaving people behind whose lives are going to be 
adversely affected.
  I certainly will not stand in the way of people who work in the 
meatpacking industry and the consumers of meat products across our 
country, in the way of trying to solve a problem that is clearly there. 
I hope their amendment receives unanimous consent, and I hope it passes 
by this Senate's will. I would ask the same thing. When the appropriate 
time comes, I will ask for the same thing on an amendment that is about 
the safety and security of American people.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for his indulgence and at least his 
appearance of listening to me.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the next quorum 
call be equally divided between the Republicans and Democrats, the 
majority and the minority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  MS. AYOTTE. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about an 
amendment I made to the continuing resolution. This is a continuing 
resolution for appropriations bills which are pending on the floor 
right now, and we are spending over $1 trillion.
  I filed an amendment, amendment No. 127, which would have struck the 
funding of $380 million for a missile to nowhere. This is funding for a 
program called the Medium Extended Air Defense System, otherwise known 
as MEADS. Up to this time, we have expended $3 billion for this system. 
Yet we will never receive a result our Army or our military can use. 
This is why it is a missile to nowhere.
  The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl 
Levin, has said of the funding for this MEADS program: With regard to 
the committee, we feel strongly that it is a waste of money.
  In the 2012 Defense authorization, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee made very clear this was going to be the last appropriation 
for this missile to nowhere. In the 2013 authorization, on a unanimous 
bipartisan basis before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the 
committee voted to say no more money for a missile to nowhere.
  Right now, our military is facing great challenges with 
sequestration. We have heard this from our military leaders. These are 
difficult choices they must make to cut training for our troops and cut 
needed flying hours when our troops absolutely need to be prepared and 
ready. For equipment, an announcement was made we were going to 
withdraw a carrier, which sends the wrong message to Iran.
  Despite all this, the continuing resolution, which is on the floor 
with the appropriations bill attached, contains $380 million for a 
missile to nowhere. This is something our military will

[[Page S1971]]

never be able to use. And why is it there? It is there because people 
are worried about their parochial interests, that their State builds 
part of this, and also because, apparently, they want to provide 
employment to the Germans and the Italians, because they are getting a 
substantial amount of this money. Yet we will never see anything our 
troops can use from it.

  My amendment was very straightforward. The amendment would do this: 
It would take the $380 million and strike it from the MEADS Program, 
then take those resources and, instead of spending the $380 million on 
the MEADS Program, it would go to the operations and maintenance fund 
for our troops for real needs they have on the ground--whether it is 
equipment or training--rather than for a missile to nowhere that they 
do not need and don't want.
  It seems to me we owe it to our troops to make sure our taxpayer 
dollars don't continue to be wasted on funding a MEADS Program we will 
never get a result from. In fact, we have had large unanimous agreement 
on a bipartisan basis about striking this MEADS Program. In fact, I 
mentioned the Senate Armed Services Committee has said we should 
prohibit funding for it. The House Armed Services Committee did the 
same thing and said we should prohibit funding for it, and the House 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee zeroed out funding for MEADS. The 
only committee that allocated funding for it was the Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee. Talk about a waste of money.
  It is shocking to me, by the way, that this amendment makes so much 
sense, that it has bipartisan support, and yet I can't get a vote on 
the floor of the Senate to strike the money for this missile to nowhere 
and to apply the funds to where our troops need them so the funds can 
actually be used to make sure they have what they need to be prepared. 
It is appalling that I am being denied the right to offer this 
amendment, to bring it to the floor, to let people vote on it. At a 
time when we face great fiscal challenges, it is absolutely appalling 
to me that here in the Senate we can't strike $380 million in funding 
for a missile to nowhere when we are almost $17 trillion in debt. This 
is what is wrong with Washington. It is appalling we cannot be in a 
position to get a vote that is germane to fund a program that the 
Concerned Veterans for America has said is wasteful, in support of my 
amendment; that the Citizens Against Government Waste agrees as well 
and supports my amendment; and that I have bipartisan support for my 
amendment. In fact, Senators Begich and Shaheen are cosponsors of my 
amendment. So this is not a partisan issue, this is about not wasting 
taxpayer dollars. I can tell you this sort of thing is what is 
appalling to the American people, that we cannot and we will not strike 
wasteful spending. We can't even get a vote on it here in the Senate.
  I am going to continue to fight to end the funding for this program 
and other wasteful spending programs and to make sure the money we have 
and the taxpayer dollars, particularly in the Pentagon but in every 
area of government, go for what they are intended--for things our 
troops need, and not a missile to nowhere where we are protecting, 
apparently, parochial interests that people are worried about more than 
they are worried about the overall fiscal state of the country.
  This is something that has been very disappointing to me. I think it 
is appalling we wouldn't allow a vote on such a relevant, germane 
amendment on a bill in which we are going to spend over $1 trillion. I 
don't know why we continue to fund things such as the missile to 
nowhere when there are real needs our troops have. I know this 
amendment had bipartisan support in the past. Both sides of the aisle 
do not want to spend money on a missile to nowhere when there are real 
needs our troops have.
  I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue on the floor 
today.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it took 4 years to get a budget from 
the Senate majority--4 long years.
  As the days go by, it has become increasingly clear why it took so 
long; their budget is so extreme and so unbalanced. That is why they 
are having such a hard time selling it to the American people and why 
they have had to fall back on some tired talking points to defend it, 
claiming their budget would, for instance, grow the economy from the 
middle class out. That is a clever sound bite, but it doesn't describe 
the Senate Democratic budget at all.
  Maybe a better way to put it is that the Democratic budget would grow 
the bureaucracy from the pockets of the middle class out. That is 
because it would increase Federal spending by almost two-thirds by 
imposing a massive tax hike that could cost the average middle-class 
family literally thousands.
  The Democrats like to say the up to $1.5 trillion tax increase 
authorized in their budget--the largest tax hike in American history, 
by the way--would be funded by closing loopholes for millionaires and 
billionaires, but the math simply doesn't add up. They will have to 
come after the middle class to fund this spending spree.
  There is something else. The Senate Democratic budget wouldn't 
balance ever--not in 2013, not in 2023, not in 2023, not ever. It 
wouldn't balance in any of our lifetimes. It wouldn't balance in the 
lifetimes of our children or our grandchildren. It would simply never 
balance.
  Think about it. That means a child born today would grow up knowing 
nothing but massive deficits their entire life. That means trillions 
upon trillions in more debt and an economy that would never ever reach 
its full potential. That is simply not right, but it is what we would 
get with the Senate Democratic plan. It is an extreme approach that is 
more than just fiscally reckless; it is deeply irresponsible.
  That is why so many middle-class families agree with Republicans that 
we should be growing the economy, not the government. They know we need 
to control Washington spending and balance the budget in order to kick-
start economic growth and to create American jobs. They are so tired of 
the Obama economy.
  They are tired of the endless pivots to jobs that never result in the 
kind of sustained job creation we need. They are tired of the sluggish 
growth, of always looking to the future with anxiety or worrying 
whether Medicare will even be there when they retire.
  They are tired of the ideological DC Democratic extremism that got us 
here: knee-jerk, tax-first solutions to almost every single problem, 
massive overspending, steadfast opposition to reforms that would make 
government programs more efficient, effective, and sustainable.
  So my friends across the aisle shouldn't be surprised their budget is 
getting such a rough ride. It contains up to $1.5 trillion in new 
taxes. This would be the largest tax hike in American history. It 
contains $\1/2\ trillion more in spending, money that could be siphoned 
out of the economy and into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.
  It lacks meaningful reforms to save and strengthen Medicare, allowing 
it to go bankrupt in just a few years, and it enshrines massive 
deficits into law, ensuring they continue forever and ever without end.
  The Senate Democratic budget is nothing more than a rehash of the 
same tired politics that continue to pummel the middle class. It is 
time to move beyond this failed extremist approach and try a new one. 
Instead of expanding the power of the bureaucratic elite at the expense 
of hardworking taxpayers, I would urge Washington to change course. 
Let's focus on growing the economy, not the government.


                               ObamaCare

  I would also like to discuss ObamaCare for a moment.
  As I just stated, Senate Republicans want policies to grow the 
economy, not the government. Yet ObamaCare is a law that grows the 
government and will slow our economy. On Saturday, we will mark the 
third anniversary of its passage into law.
  Republicans have long warned that ObamaCare would have a devastating

[[Page S1972]]

impact on our country. I have spoken about 100 times on the Senate 
floor against ObamaCare and I have warned about its consequences: 
increased premiums, lost jobs, and higher taxes.
  Unfortunately, many of those things have already started happening. 
It is not just off in the future. It has already happened, and the 
Federal Government has only just begun implementing the law.
  Instead of premiums going down $2,500, as President Obama promised, 
they have actually gone up by about the same amount, $2,500. Congress's 
own nonpartisan budget experts tell us the premiums will increase by 
about $2,100 after more rules, more taxes, and more mandates take 
effect.
  The Federal Reserve also came out with a report that confirmed 
something else Americans already know: ObamaCare is costing us jobs. By 
some estimates, it could end up costing 800,000 jobs at a time when we 
desperately need more of them.
  Members of the President's own party have begun sounding the alarm 
about the law's tax hike, including its tax on medical devices.
  His union allies are concerned the law will make them less 
competitive too. Of course it will. Perhaps some of the union bosses 
should have more thoroughly considered the well-being of their members 
before supporting ObamaCare's passage in the first place.
  ObamaCare has already become a regulatory nightmare. I would call the 
attention of my colleagues to this chart. This is the ObamaCare law, 
hundreds of pages in itself. But these are the regulations so far: 7 
feet tall, almost 20,000 pages of ObamaCare regulations so far.
  The law itself is not small, hundreds and hundreds of pages. But 
nearly 20,000 new pages of regulations, 7 feet tall, and they are just 
getting started. This monster of a bill, as I indicated, was hundreds 
of pages long itself, but that is actually nothing compared to the 
regulations it has spawned.
  This more than 7-foot stack of paper next to me is what has become 
known as the redtape tower--the redtape tower, almost 20,000 pages of 
ObamaCare regulations so far. It is nearly 20,000 pages' worth of 
complexity. That is just what the bureaucracy has dreamed of so far, 
and we can only imagine how much more is yet to come.
  Do we expect small businesses to be able to cope with all the rules 
in this tower? If you were a small business owner, how could you? Would 
you even be able to read through all of them and figure out which ones 
applied to you? I doubt it. I don't expect the average American to have 
much luck either.
  The administration released a draft ObamaCare application last week. 
It is 21 pages long. Unbelievable. If you like doing your taxes, you 
are going to love applying for the ObamaCare exchanges.
  So Washington Democrats may pop the champagne this Saturday to 
celebrate the law's third anniversary, but more Americans and small 
business owners will be reaching for an aspirin once they are forced to 
start navigating this bureaucratic nightmare.
  In my view, ObamaCare is a colossal mistake for our country. There is 
no way to fix this thing. It needs to be pulled out by its roots, and 
we need to start all over. This bill needs to be repealed and it needs 
to be replaced, not with another unreadable law or another 20,000 pages 
of regulations but with commonsense reforms that actually lower health 
care costs.
  Anyone who thinks we have given up this fight is dead wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, in a few seconds I will be propounding 
a unanimous consent request. We were originally scheduled to have a 
series of votes at 11:15. We think we have a way of working out some of 
our concerns if we just take a little bit of a breather and do the kind 
of negotiation based on the civility and common sense that we have been 
using during this deliberation.
  Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the previous order, all postcloture time be considered 
expired at 2 p.m., with the time until 2 p.m. to be equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees, with all other provisions 
of the previous order remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, just to give everybody the lay of the 
land, it means we are working through our legislative issues, and at 2 
o'clock we will then proceed to a series of votes which will be 
announced in plenty of time for people to know what is happening.
  I ask unanimous consent that the quorum calls be equally divided, and 
I thank the able floor staff for giving me advice. There are days when 
I think it is an opera and they are calling out the arias we need to 
sing. But we are moving, and I thank Senator Shelby for consulting with 
his side of the aisle.
  At 2 o'clock we are going to have a series of amendments, and I think 
the Senate will feel very solid about the direction in which we are 
going.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, in a minute I am going to call up an 
amendment that I was speaking about on the floor of the Senate over the 
last few days. Essentially, this is an amendment that is pending to the 
bill--the continuing resolution and appropriations bills--that would 
strike $380 million of spending for the MEADS program. It is 
essentially a missile to nowhere that our troops will never be able to 
use in theater. We want to transfer that money to the operations and 
maintenance funding for the troops so we can make sure there are 
resources they can use to, obviously, make sure they have what they 
need for the very best equipment and training--particularly in light of 
sequestration and what we are facing. I know there is an agreement that 
is being worked out, and I hope my amendment is included in that 
agreement.
  At this time I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment so I may call up my amendment, amendment No. 127.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I 
have listened to most of her speeches, and she has been very 
articulate. I appreciate how she feels. There are some Democrats who 
agree with her, but the problem is it is hard to arrive at a list of 
amendments. I appreciate her intensity, and I certainly do not in any 
way denigrate what she has been trying to do, but this is the situation 
in which we find ourselves.
  I reluctantly object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I too have an amendment that I have been 
attempting for a number of days to have made in order. This is the 
amendment that deals with the air traffic control towers. It is an 
amendment that very directly and simply transfers money from two 
accounts that have lots of money in them--the unencumbered balances of 
the Department of Transportation as well as a research fund--transfers 
$50 million from those two accounts to the air traffic control program. 
If we do that, we can at least avert--at least what the Department of 
Transportation says is necessary to eliminate that program--closing 
more than 170 air traffic control towers on April 7.
  I spoke earlier this morning, and I intend to speak before the vote 
occurs. I

[[Page S1973]]

will not repeat myself at this point in time, but this morning I 
outlined--and I hope my colleagues were listening--the importance of 
this amendment to the safety of the traveling public. The modest nature 
of what we are trying to accomplish has the bipartisan support, as well 
as the wide range of support, from groups outside the Congress that 
support this amendment.
  I again ask unanimous consent to amend the previous order and bring 
up my amendment. It is amendment No. 55, that 10 minutes be equally 
divided, and we proceed immediately to a vote on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I withdraw that. My understanding is the 
Senator from Montana has a brief statement to make regarding a big 
event in Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is basically correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask to speak as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Baucus are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at an appropriate time I will ask for 
some consideration of an amendment of mine, amendment No. 6. My 
amendment would hold the Obama administration accountable for its 
recent decision to release more than 2,000 undocumented immigrants from 
detention centers across the country in the past month. U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement claimed they were releasing these 
people because they needed to reduce their average daily detention 
population of about 34,000 people--a congressionally mandated 
requirement. They claimed they had to reduce the detention population 
for budgetary reasons. Week after week, agents were tasked to release 
so many individuals.
  At first the Department of Homeland Security claimed it only released 
a few hundred people. However, last week the Director of Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement admitted that the administration had misled the 
American people by confessing that over 2,200 aliens were actually 
released. They continue to stand by the excuse that budget cuts were 
the reason for releasing these individuals.
  Simply blaming budget reduction as a means to turn a blind eye toward 
the national security of the American people is a very dangerous plan 
and one that calls into question the Department's preparation for 
sequestration, particularly when we consider that months before 
sequestration the Office of Management and Budget put out an order to 
all departments that national security, law enforcement, and safety and 
health should be a top priority. So if keeping criminals off the 
streets of the United States shouldn't be a top priority--as per the 
order from the Office of Management and Budget--I don't know what 
should be. So I want an accounting for it, and that is what my 
amendment does--requests a simple accounting for why they were released 
and what it was all about. What is even more disturbing is the fact 
that the Department had billions of unobligated funds from the past 2 
years that could have been put into protecting the American people.
  On February 27 I sent a request to Secretary Napolitano questioning 
the decisions of the Department. The letter, cosigned by Chairman 
Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee, was an attempt to better 
understand--just a simple understanding--how the Department will better 
confront sequestration and reduce operational challenges that could 
affect the life, safety, and health of the American people--the same 
life, health, and safety of the American people evidenced by this very 
administration's directive going out from the Office of Management and 
Budget of the priorities that ought to be established during 
sequestration.
  Now, you know what. So often what we find from this administration--
and have even found in previous Republican administrations--is that 
letters that are embarrassing go unanswered. Unfortunately, this is not 
unusual. About a dozen of my letters to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security on just the immigration issue have gone unanswered. There is 
no respect for congressional oversight. It is very frustrating.
  We are on the cusp of undertaking a massive reform of our immigration 
system. Yet getting answers to the most basic questions seems to be an 
impossible operation. Time and again, we have seen this administration 
refuse to be held accountable, and what we want is just information. It 
is not as though we are saying that what the administration has done--
even if we disagree with it--can't be done or shouldn't be done. But 
shouldn't the people know about who is being turned out in the streets 
when they have been held in confinement for a long period of time? I 
fear what will become of the President's promise of transparency if and 
when we do pass an immigration bill. And this is an example of things 
to fear in the future. Enacting a bill is one part of the process, and 
implementing the law is another part of the process. If we don't have 
faith in this administration now, what about trust for the future?
  So my amendment would require U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement to submit weekly reports--just submit reports--to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary. The reports 
will be required to contain detailed budgets on how ICE will maintain 
the 34,000 detention bed occupancy levels authorized by Congress. It 
also requires ICE to provide the number of aliens released from 
detention as well as the following information on aliens released for 
budget-related purposes: the conviction or charge for which they were 
detained, fugitive status, existence of a prior deportation order, and 
the terms of release.
  My amendment happens to be cosponsored by Senators Inhofe, Vitter, 
Boozman, Roberts, Coats, McConnell, and Collins.
  Within the last few days, we have had the Director of ICE, Mr. 
Morton, testify--well, it was just yesterday in the House. Chairman 
Goodlatte said his testimony raised more questions.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a press release that expresses the testimony of Director Morton.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                          Judiciary Committee,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2013.

               Director Morton's Testimony Doesn't Add Up

       Washington, D.C.--Today, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton testified before the 
     House Judiciary Committee regarding criminal and illegal 
     immigrants who are priorities for removal but were released 
     by the agency, which claimed release was necessary due to 
     sequestration. However, several of the claims made by 
     Director Morton do not match the facts and here's why:
       At today's hearing, Director Morton blamed the release of 
     criminal and illegal immigrants on the lack of funding in the 
     Continuing Resolution (CR) and the sequester. But the CR 
     funded ICE above their budgetary request and provided the 
     required funding to maintain detention beds at their average 
     daily requirement of 34,000 through the end of March. 
     Meanwhile, an internal ICE document shows that the agency 
     began releasing detainees on February 15 and had already 
     released thousands of criminal and illegal immigrants ahead 
     of sequestration.
       In addition, while the sequester cuts the agency's funding 
     by 5%, the savings resulting from the decision to mass 
     release criminal and illegal immigrants into the population 
     goes well above 5%. A 5% reduction of 34,000 detention beds 
     is about 1,700, but ICE has already released over 2,200 
     criminal and illegal immigrants and the plan was to reduce 
     the daily population by 5,000.
       Furthermore, Director Morton today acknowledged that he 
     could have made a reprogramming request to Congress or could

[[Page S1974]]

     have used other funds to keep criminals off of our streets. 
     However, he did not provide any reasoning as to why he did 
     not make such a request.
       House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) 
     released the statement below regarding these inconsistencies.
       Chairman Goodlatte: ``Director Morton's testimony given to 
     the House Judiciary Committee today doesn't add up. U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement had more than enough 
     money to continue detaining criminal and illegal immigrants 
     that are priorities for removal and could have made a 
     reprogramming request to Congress if the money ran out. But 
     Director Morton never made such a request nor provided any 
     rationale as to what is more important than keeping criminal 
     immigrants off of our streets.
       ``In addition, the sequester mandated a 5% cut at ICE but 
     the agency released more than 5% of detained criminal and 
     illegal immigrants. These facts make it appear that the 
     decision to release more than 600 convicted criminals and 
     others facing charges into our communities was more of a 
     political calculation than a budgetary necessity. This 
     decision not only undermines ICE's credibility but also 
     undercuts the American people's trust in this 
     Administration's ability to enforce our immigration laws.''

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Last week Mr. Morton said they released 10 level 1 
offenders. These are people convicted of violent crimes. They are 
repeat drunk drivers, as an example. Yesterday he said they only 
released eight, but he also said they were trying to relocate them and 
bring them back in. Well, if you have these dangerous people out on the 
streets, the public ought to know about it.
  So I suspect that when I ask unanimous consent now, the other side 
will object to my amendment. And I don't know why they want to go to 
such lengths to protect this administration when all we want is simple 
information--just simple information. We aren't saying that the 
decisions made--even though we disagree with them--ought to be changed. 
We are just saying that the public ought to know when we put violent 
people out on the streets, and when we put people out on the streets 
who shouldn't be out on the streets, we ought to know where they are, 
why they were put out there, and what it is all about.
  I think the objection to allowing this amendment to have a vote--as I 
presume it will be objected to--is indefensible, but at this point I 
call up for consideration my amendment No. 76, and I ask for just 10 
minutes of debate and a vote on my amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I understand how the Senator 
feels. Over the years I have served with him, he has always made his 
opinions very clear. We had his amendment in the list of amendments we 
were going to do before, with some modifications that my friend 
wouldn't agree to. So I understand his feelings about this, but the 
good news is that within the very near, foreseeable future--hopefully, 
I can start it in the next work period--we are going to start 
immigration legislation here on the floor. We are finally going to be 
able to move to something that will include issues people have wanted 
to deal with for a long time.
  So I say to my friend, I object, but I understand how he feels about 
the issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding 
cloture having been invoked, the following amendments be in order to 
the Mikulski-Shelby substitute: Coburn No. 69; Coburn No. 93; Coburn 
No. 65, as modified; Coburn No. 70, as modified; Inhofe-Hagan No. 72, 
as modified; Mikulski-Shelby No. 98, as modified with changes that are 
at the desk; Leahy No. 129, as modified with changes that are at the 
desk; and Pryor-Blunt No. 82; that no other first-degree amendments to 
the substitute or the underlying bill be in order; that no second-
degree amendments be in order to any of the amendments listed above 
prior to the votes; that the time until 2:15 p.m. be equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees, with 30 minutes of 
Republican time under the control of Senator Moran prior to votes in 
relation to the amendments in the order listed; that upon disposition 
of the Pryor-Blunt amendment No. 82, the Durbin second-degree amendment 
to the Toomey amendment No. 115 be withdrawn; that it be in order for 
the Toomey amendment to be modified with the changes that are at the 
desk; that the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Toomey 
amendment No. 115, as modified; that upon disposition of the Toomey 
amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on the Mikulski-Shelby substitute 
amendment, as amended; that all amendments, with the exception of the 
Mikulski-Shelby substitute, be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote 
threshold; that upon disposition of the substitute amendment, as 
amended, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on 
the underlying bill; that if cloture is invoked on H.R. 933, as 
amended, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to 
vote on passage of H.R. 933, as amended; and, finally, that all votes 
after the first vote be 10-minute votes and there be 2 minutes equally 
divided in the usual form between the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate everyone's understanding on 
both sides. This is going to allow us to get to the issue at hand very 
soon, and that is the budget, with Senators Murray and Sessions leading 
us on that issue.
  Also, we were able to get a number of these amendments that people 
have been wanting very badly to get. So I appreciate everything people 
have done to this point.


                            Amendment No. 72

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support an amendment to H.R. 933 requiring the military services to 
resume their tuition assistance programs, which are so vital to our 
military's professional and educational development.
  On March 5, 2013, the Department of Defense Comptroller Robert Hale 
sent a letter to the services to provide ``additional guidance for 
handling budgetary uncertainty in fiscal year 2013.'' In his letter, 
Secretary Hale said that ``all services should consider significant 
reductions in funding new tuition assistance applications.''
  Three days later, on March 8, the Army suspended tuition assistance 
for all its soldiers--Guard and Reserve--and as a result, more than one 
million Army soldiers immediately lost this important education 
benefit. There was not a single exception, not one, not even for troops 
wounded in combat.
  The Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marines also suspended their tuition 
assistance programs.
  This matter concerns me greatly, and I hope it does my colleagues as 
well. I understand the difficult fiscal decisions facing our military 
as a result of the sequester, but I object to the way they are handling 
tuition assistance with what amounts to blunt force policy making.
  I want to reexamine the exact wording of Secretary Hale's letter. He 
stated that the military services ``should consider significant 
reductions in the tuition program.'' I want to repeat, he said to 
``consider significant reductions.'' Although his guidance was non-
specific in terms of what amounts to ``significant,'' four of our five 
military services followed with the most extreme reduction possible--
they suspended all tuition assistance, indefinitely.
  This decision affects lives, real lives of one of our nation's 
greatest treasures--the less than 1 percent of our fellow citizens who 
are willing to volunteer and serve in our Armed Forces, regardless of 
the dangers they are likely to face in the defense of freedom.
  I want to highlight one example of the thousands of lives now 
affected--a young soldier who recently enlisted in the National Guard. 
His personal story reflects the negative impact the tuition assistance 
cuts are going to have on our Armed Forces.
  I saw him interviewed by a news station. He is 19, but with his new 
buzz cut, he looked much younger. His military mannerisms were 
unmistakable he gave short responses, always beginning with a ``Sir'' 
or ``Ma'am.''
  When asked how the decision to suspend tuition assistance affected 
him, he said, politely, ``I was really counting'' on tuition assistance 
for college.
  You see, this young man does not have any comparable education 
benefits to fall back on. He is only 19, as I said, and just back from 
training. As a Guardsman, he would need to deploy at

[[Page S1975]]

least once to receive some of the new GI Bill benefits.
  What do you think he will tell his friends about the military as a 
result of this experience? What will his family say? And how much 
warning did we give this young man that he could no longer count on 
$4,500 per year in tuition assistance?
  As I said, this young man was 19 years old. Last month the veterans' 
unemployment rate for those ages 18 to 24 rose again. It is now a very 
troubling 36.2 percent. We are in the midst of a grave unemployment 
crisis and now is the time to invest--not divest--in continuing 
education for our military.
  This is not the way we should treat our service men and women. We 
should keep our commitments, especially those we have made to those who 
are willing to sacrifice everything for their fellow Americans and the 
Nation.
  I urge my friends and colleagues to support our amendment to require 
the services to resume tuition assistance the minute this bill passes. 
It is sponsored by Senators Inhofe and Hagan, and it is a necessary 
response to an unnecessarily harsh and short-sighted policy decision.
  The sequester is not a thoughtful or balanced approach to cutting 
spending, and we should find an alternative. But, until that moment 
occurs, everyone, especially the military services, must reject the 
impulse to ``grab low hanging fruit,'' and cut it down, in its 
entirety, simply because it is more convenient.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I commend the chairwoman and vice 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senators Mikulski and Shelby, 
on crafting a strong bill to close out the remaining 6 months of the 
fiscal year. This bill was developed under difficult circumstances and 
time constraints, and I really feel they have done a good job of 
returning some semblance of regular order to this process. I am hopeful 
this progress will continue in the coming fiscal year.
  One of my disappointments with this legislation, however, is that we 
are not able to fund any new Army Corps of Engineers projects.
  The lack of new starts in the Corps is of particular concern to my 
State, as it impedes progress on the flood control project in Hamilton 
City, CA. It is a project that could potentially serve as a model for 
Corp projects throughout the Nation. More importantly, the construction 
of a new levee is critical for the protection of Hamilton City and 
Glenn County from catastrophic flooding. The project has been ready for 
construction for several years now but has been entangled in the new 
starts prohibition.
  It is my hope and intention that for fiscal year 2014 we will have 
regular order in appropriations, and I will work to support this 
project moving forward.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I met with FAA Administrator Michael 
Huerta last week to discuss sequestration and how it will affect our 
national aviation network. Sequestration will reduce the FAA's budget 
by approximately $600 million in the middle of this fiscal year. The 
Administrator told me this swift and sudden reduction in funding will 
have serious consequences to the efficiency of our national aviation 
system, especially in Illinois. Airport managers throughout the State 
of Illinois have also registered their serious concerns about the 
sequestration impact on commercial and general aviation.
  The FAA will have to severely reduce service or completely close 
approximately 180 air traffic control towers across the country. Nine 
air traffic control towers in Illinois will have their service either 
eliminated or severely reduced: Alton, Aurora, Bloomington-Normal, 
Decatur, DuPage, Carbondale, Marion, Springfield and Waukegan. The FAA 
has also said that overnight air traffic control service at Peoria and 
Midway airports could be eliminated. These are serious steps that will 
increase delays, reduce capacity and potentially compromise the safety 
of the airspace in the areas surrounding these airports.
  I will continue to monitor this situation and will work with the FAA 
and airport managers throughout the State of Illinois to address 
aviation safety and air traffic delays.
  However, the aviation system is not the only harm sequestration will 
have on this country. The White House estimates sequestration will 
reduce the readiness of our troops; put up to 10,000 veterans at 
substantial risk of becoming homeless; drop 70,000 children from Head 
Start, including 2,700 from Illinois; take nutritional assistance away 
from 600,000 families because of cuts to WIC; and reduce foreclosure 
prevention and other counseling to 75,000 fewer households.
  Many Republicans have said they are comfortable with allowing 
sequestration to continue. They think no one will notice what 
sequestration does to the country. I disagree. These sequestration cuts 
will have real impact on real people in Illinois. We need to stop 
sequestration with a balanced solution of budget cuts and revenue. I am 
pleased we will soon start debating the budget resolution. Budget 
Chairwoman Patty Murray has produced a budget that will stop 
sequestration and the negative impacts it will have on our economy, our 
troops and working families across America.

                          ____________________